Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

ZETLAND COUNTY COUNCIL BILL

Lords amendments agreed to.

AYR COUNTY COUNCIL ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL

ST. ANDREWS LINKS ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL

RENFREW COUNTY COUNCIL ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL (By Order)

Considered; to be read the Third time tomorrow.

GLASGOW CORPORATION (CONTROL OF PARKING ETC.) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL

GLASGOW CORPORATION (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL

GREENOCK CORPORATION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL

Read a Second time; to be considered tomorrow.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

School Transport

Dr. Edmund Marshall: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is his policy in respect of the recommendations of the working party on school transport.

Mr. Milne: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what action he proposes to take on the report on school transport and bus travel arrangements.

The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Reg Prentice): I hope soon to have the views of the local authority associations on the report of the working party on school transport. When I have received and considered their views I shall make a statement.

Dr. Marshall: May I impress upon my right hon. Friend the urgency with which some of my constituents regard the matter? When he is formulating proposals, will he ensure that no parent is required to pay more towards the cost of his child's transport to school than is incurred already?

Mr. Prentice: I am aware of the urgency of the matter and of the particular concern arising from the tragic deaths as a result of the accident which my hon. Friend drew to my predecessor's attention. I do not want to anticipate decisions on the report, which is complicated, and I shall need to have the views of local authorities before making a statement.

Mr. Redmond: While making no party point on this subject, and realising that the right hon. Gentleman has had only four weeks in his Department, may I ask whether he does not think that this matter has been hanging about long enough and that it is time we had an urgent decision? Would it not be better to get on with this matter than decide about comprehensive schools?

Mr. Prentice: It is very important to get on with the question of comprehensive schools. However, I believe that this


matter requires a decision as early as possible. Complicated questions are involved. There is a difficulty in the present arrangements, in that the entitlement of a child living just within the statutory distance and one living just outside that distance creates an anomaly which is resented. On the other hand, finding an alternative to the arrangement is complicated. We want local authorities to give careful consideration to the issue and to let us have their advice before we make a decision.

Mr. Milne: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in some parts of the country the question of distance in respect of school travel is not the real problem? Is he aware that the issue in new towns such as Cramlington and other areas in my constituency is that youngsters have to cross two main motorways to reach school, although they are only a short distance from school? Does not my right hon. Friend agree that this aspect of the report should be studied and put into operation?

Mr. Prentice: Yes, Sir. We have the long-standing anomaly arising from the distance problem, complicated in many areas by increasing traffic dangers to children living at varying distances from school. All these aspects must be taken into account in trying to reach the right answer.

Mr. Fell: Will the right hon. Gentleman take into account new types of transport that have come into certain areas within the past few years, which have made it extremely difficult for children who have to negotiate some of those roads?

Mr. Prentice: Yes, I shall take those aspects into account, and I shall be glad to have views from the hon. Member or any other hon. Members on this problem over the next few weeks.

School Milk

Mr. Janner: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will take steps to reintroduce free milk for school children.

Mr. Prentice: The possibility of restoring free school milk to the pupils from whom it was withdrawn in 1971 by the Education (Milk) Act is among

the many matters which the Government are considering, but no decision has yet been reached. It would require legislation.

Mr. Janner: Is my right hon. Friend aware that such legislation would be regarded as of extreme importance by those of us on the Government side of the House who regarded the withdrawal of free school milk as one of the meanest acts of the previous administration?

Mr. Prentice: I agree that the decision of the last administration was mean, and I regret that it occurred. My position on this, as on so many matters, is that I have inherited situations which I dislike and oppose. In trying to reverse them one is forced to make difficult decisions about priorities and to take time in deciding what those priorities are.

Miss Fookes: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it was a mean decision when the original withdrawal of milk was made by the previous Labour administration?

Mr. Prentice: Most people who have studied this matter have differentiated between the requirements of secondary school children and primary school children.

Higher Education

Mr. Hooley: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on Government policy on the reorganisation of higher education in the non-university sector.

The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Mr. Gerry Fowler): The Government generally intend to proceed on the broad lines set out in the White Paper "Education: A Framework for Expansion"—Cmnd. 5174—and in accordance with Circular 7/73.

Mr. Hooley: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is a certain degree of urgency in this matter, as reorganisation of higher education has to be geared into the academic year? If decisions miss a particular September, we are stuck for another 12 months. Is my hon. Friend further aware that impending reorganisation is causing a good deal of uncertainty and unease, not merely to academic but to


non-academic staff in colleges and elsewhere? May we have an early decision on this matter?

Mr. Fowler: Each case has to be considered on its merits once we have received a proposal from the local education authority. I appreciate the need for haste. Equally, I appreciate the need to consult staff and to protect their interests.

Mr. Lane: Within the whole of higher education, will the Government continue to give special emphasis to the polytechnics, so that in the next few years the universities may concern themselves more with consolidation than with expansion?

Mr. Fowler: As I said in my original answer, we intend to proceed on the broad lines indicated in the White Paper of December 1972. That makes clear where the emphasis in expansion will he.

Secondary Education

Mr. Norman Fowler: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is his policy towards the introduction of comprehensive education; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Carter: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is his policy towards secondary reorganisation.

Mr. Michael Latham: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will now make a statement on his proposals for secondary reorganisation.

Mr. Prentice: I informed the House on 15th March that consultations would take place before the issue of a new circular replacing Circular 10/70. Those consultations have begun and the circular should issue later this month. I intend to achieve a fully comprehensive system of secondary organisation.

Mr. Fowler: Will the right hon. Gentleman nevertheless confirm that he will maintain the public's existing legal right to object to any schemes that are proposed? Will he also give an assurance that he will be guided essentially by local opinion in these matters?

Mr. Prentice: The answer to the first question is "Yes". The legal rights of the public derive from the Education Act, and there is no proposal in the foresee-

able future to amend that. I shall be guided by local opinion, but not necessarily by artificially contrived local opinion. For example, petitions that on the face of them have a large number of signatures do not necessarily represent the broad mass of public opinion in an area.

Mr. Carter: Does the Minister agree that the principle of comprehensive education has been adequately approved by the electorate at both local and national elections? Will my right hon. Friend, as a matter of priority, now consider once again those many schemes that were put to the former Secretary of State but that exist only in a completely emasculated form?

Mr. Prentice: I have already made it clear in a recent statement that those local education authorities that made proposals to my predecessor and were turned down by her are welcome to submit those proposals again. I am glad to know that in many areas, including Birmingham, that process is already taking place.

Mr. Latham: Will the right hon. Gentleman say a little more about the way in which he will assess parental wishes, and what importance he will attach to them?

Mr. Prentice: I do not think that it is possible to define that in terms that can be measured. Of course, parental wishes are one of many factors that will be taken into account. I want to make clear that the policy of the Government is to move towards a comprehensive system of secondary education as quickly as possible. There is a policy choice to be made which the Conservative Government consistently fudged, but which we do not fudge. We are making our policy in this respect clear.

Mr. Christopher Price: Is my right hon. Friend aware that if our secondary schools have problems, they are problems about inner city areas and the raising of the school leaving age, and that any tardiness in progressing with comprehensive reorganisation will make those problems worse rather than better? Will my right hon. Friend repudiate stories, such as we saw in the Daily Mail this morning, that the Government are going slow on comprehensive reorganisation?

Mr. Prentice: I completely repudiate any suggestion that we are going slow, and I agree with my hon. Friend that whereas there are many serious problems in secondary education, they do not derive from progress that has been made towards abolishing selection and they would not be helped, either, by retaining selection or restoring it in places where it has already been abandoned.

Mr. Bell: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that by statute parental wishes are not merely to be taken into account but are to prevail, in so far as that is possible? Will he also remember that over the past year or so parental opinion has been moving strongly against comprehensive schools?

Mr. Prentice: I believe that the hon. and learned Gentleman is absolutely wrong in the conclusion of the second part of his question. I believe that the broad tide of opinion among parents, teachers and the community as a whole is in favour of reorganisation along comprehensive lines.

Mr. Marks: Will my right hon. Friend include the existing direct grant schools in his completely comprehensive system?

Mr. Prentice: It is certainly my wish to see a completely comprehensive system affecting all secondary education. The precise terms in which the circular will refer to direct grant schools is something that I will not anticipate, because at the moment the circular is the subject of consultation. I reiterate that I hope that it will be issued later this month.

Student Grants

Mr. Hunt: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether, in his view on student grant levels, he will include a consideration of the future of discretionary grants.

Mr. Gerry Fowler: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Hunt: In the meantime, will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that nothing causes more resentment among students than the feeling that the level of these grants is decided not on merit but upon the geographical accident of where their parents happen to live? Therefore, in the context of the current review, will the hon. Gentleman under-

take to take some new initiative to deal with this long-standing problem?

Mr. Fowler: My right hon. Friend and I will consider that point sympathetically. In 1971 my Department did advise local authorities to reduce the variations in the level of the awards which they make.

Mr. Mark Hughes: In this review, will my hon. Friend also look into the anomaly of the married woman student grant, which causes equal distress?

Mr. Fowler: Yes, Sir.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: Is the Minister satisfied with the response of local authorities to the circular issued by his right hon. Friend's predecessor calling for a standard level of grant in discretionary cases? If not, will he consider making the level mandatory? How much would that cost?

Mr. Fowler: I cannot anticipate the result of the review which we are conducting. I think that the degree of variation between grants is still excessive, and I hope that local authorities will be able to come nearer towards a standard level.

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received, following his recent announcement on his review of student grants, requesting him to expedite his decision on the improvement of student grants.

Mr. Gerry Fowler: My right hon. Friend has received a letter from one hon. Member.

Mr. Hamilton: Will my hon. Friend give an assurance that when a decision is reached there will be a subsequent annual review of student grants tied to an index—either the cost of living index or the average earnings index? In view of the not too popular image of students at the moment and their lack of bargaining power, will he give an assurance that there will be an annual review?

Mr. Fowler: My right hon. Friend has already told the House that there will be an annual review procedure. As for the other details of the hon. Gentleman's question, I must leave that until the results of the review are announced.

Mr. Churchill: In view of the difficulties faced by many students—particularly those in city areas such as Manchester and London—and the increases in their living expenses, how soon do the present Government expect to introduce an increase in student grants?

Mr. Fowler: We hope to be able to make an announcement in the course of the next six or seven weeks. I must, however, remind the House that the delay imported into the procedure by a decision taken early in February by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, whom I am glad now to see in his place, is not my responsibility, nor that of the present Government.

School Building

Mr. Cryer: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he is prepared to restore the full school building programme curtailed by the previous administration; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Thorne: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he has any immediate plans to restore the cuts in education expenditure instituted by the previous Government so that reorganisation of secondary education along comprehensive lines already proceeding in Lancashire and Liverpool will be strengthened by the allocation of additional resources directly associated with adaptations to school buildings; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Graham: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on his review of the cuts in education expenditure announced by the previous Government, with particular reference to Edmonton.

Mr. Flannery: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he has any plans to restore the £182 million cuts in education brought in by the previous administration; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. R. C. Mitchell: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what steps he is taking to restore the cuts in the school building programme made by the previous administration.

Mr. Prentice: During the debate on the Rate Support Grant Order on 25th March, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment announced the Governments decision not to rescind the cuts in local authority current expenditure in 1974–75 imposed by the previous Government. That decision, which affects all local government services, including education, was made in the light of our current serious economic difficulties. For the same reason, I cannot at present authorise larger education building programmes for 1974–75.

Mr. Cryer: I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply. Nevertheless, may I ask him to pay special attention to intermediate areas such as Bradford, where 19 schools are in urgent need of replacement? I recognise that my right hon. Friend's difficulties were created by the previous administration, some of the supporters of which are now shouting from the benches opposite.

Mr. Prentice: The difficulties that we have inherited are of a most severe character. It should be pointed out—particularly in view of some of the noises from hon. Members opposite—that, since they imposed the December 1973 cut, the nation has faced a loss of more than £1,500 million in lost production in a totally unnecessary period of three-day working. It is that situation with which the Government are having to cope.
Against that background, the school building programme for 1974–75 will deal entirely with basic needs, rather than with improvement projects. I regret that very much, because in Bradford, as, indeed, in many other parts of the country, there are old schools that should have been replaced a long time ago.

Mr. Thorne: Is my hon. Friend prepared to put pressure on the Chancellor of the Exchequer to ensure a speedy taxation of the wealthy, in order to restore some of the costs that have hit Lancashire, particularly?

Mr. Prentice: I must not anticipate my right hon. Friend's autumn Budget.

Mr. Charles Morrison: Since, in the light of the right hon. Gentleman's earlier reply, the development of comprehensive schools is to have a higher priority, what


sort of schools within the school building programme will have a lower priority?

Mr. Prentice: My earlier reply on comprehensive and secondary education did not include any reference to the size of the secondary school building programme. Reorganisation along comprehensive lines will proceed more rapidly if and when it is possible to increase allocations for secondary school building. I am not proposing to do that during 1974–75. I have had to accept the level of school building that I inherited for that year. Of course, that makes secondary school reorganisation more difficult, but not impossible. Considerable progress has been made in the past by many local education authorities in going comprehensive without having extra resources available for that purpose.

Mr. Mitchell: I find it somewhat difficult to thank my right hon. Friend for his reply. Even if the cuts for 1974–75 cannot be restored, may the House have an assurance that some of the amount that has been lost will be made up during the 1975–76 programme?

Mr. Prentice: I should not want to thank myself for that reply, either. No one regrets this situation more bitterly than I. The 1975–76 programme is a matter for discussion and decision, on which I cannot make a statement today.

Mr. Carlisle: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that as recently as 28th January of this year, and during the continuance of the three-day working week, the Labour Party moved and voted on in this House a motion deploring the cuts in the education service? Does the right hon. Gentleman not therefore think that those who voted for the Labour Party at the General Election would now expect it to rescind those cuts, or was the debate a complete charade?

Mr. Prentice: I voted on that occasion, and with considerable support, for the motion put down by the then Opposition. I ask the hon. and learned Gentleman and the House to recognise that since then we have had the total effect of the three-day working week and the record trade deficit figures for January and February, amounting to more than £800 million in a two-months' period. That is the extent of our inheritance. I should like to

see the situation improved as soon as possible, but the Government came to the collective decision, to which I am party with my colleagues, that our earliest priorities in terms of public expenditure were a substantial increase in retirement pensions and some money for food subsidies to try to fight inflation.
Against that background, the Chancellor had to announce last week that there could be no increases in other public expenditure programmes. That is the background—one which we can defend, although we regret having to do so.

Mr. van Straubenzee: But if the three-day working week is such a relevant factor—as the Secretary of State would wish us to believe it is—how was it that as recently as 13th February, when speaking at Stretford, the Lord President of the Council, as he now is, gave the country to understand that the cuts in question would be restored? Has the Secretary of State not now totally buried that statement, and should the Lord President not make a suitably penitential apology?

Mr. Prentice: The Opposition are playing the oldest political game in the world, which is to take statements out of context. If the hon. Gentleman reads the Labour Party Manifesto—I shall send him a copy if he does not have one—he will find at the beginning a statement that we have many objectives in social expenditure. However, the pace at which we can fulfil those objectives must depend upon the rate of progress that we make in tackling the economic crisis that we have inherited. That applies to improvements in education building and other matters to which we remain as deeply committed as we have always been. Therefore, I stand completely by what my right hon. Friend said during the election, but the timing of our ability to carry out these matters depends upon the economic situation.

Nursery Education

Mrs. Renee Short: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what proposals he has for the expansion of nursery education.

Mr. Steel: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he expects to be able to introduce a national scheme of nursery schools.

Mr. Prentice: The Government's aim is to make provision as soon as possible for nursery education for children of three and four years of age, mainly on a part-time basis. In pursuing this aim, we shall attach particular urgency to meeting the needs of disadvantaged children. The necessary building programme will begin with the 1974–75 building starts year.

Mrs. Short: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Does he recall that in the White Paper introduced by the previous administration the sum of £34 million was provided over the two-year building period for nursery education, but when the bids from the local authorities came into the Department it was found that much more money was needed to carry out the wishes of the local education authorities? Will my right hon. Friend give an undertaking that he will significantly improve on £34 million? We all understand the appalling mess in which the previous administration left us, but does my right hon. Friend not think that he should approach his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence to see what further defence economies, in line with the election programme that we placed before the people on 28th February, can be made, so that we can expand the nursery education programme? That will have the wholesale support of the country.

Mr. Prentice: On the last part of my hon. Friend's question, what I have said already about education expenditure programmes for 1974–75 must stand. It is a decision of the Government, which includes plans to make the further cuts in defence that have been announced. The allocations for nursery education stand.
I make it absolutely clear that I expect authorities to stand by their commitments, and if for any reason some authorities cannot spend, or do not wish to spend, their allocations on nursery education, I expect to reallocate them. In other words, I am not in any sense raising the amount appropriated for nursery education in the current year. In subsequent years, I hope that we shall do a lot better. Meanwhile, I want to get down to making plans for expansion.

Mr. Steel: As the Secretary of State stressed the part-time nature of his pro-

posals, what role does he envisage in them for the pre-school playgroup movement? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many of us believe that, because of the element of parental participation, it should have a valuable rôle to play?

Mr. Prentice: At this stage, the total provision for children below five years of age falls between my Department and the Department of Health and Social Security. I have been in touch with the latter Department about these matters, and will keep closely in touch. It is a long-standing Labour Party view that all these provisions should be brought within the DES. However, that would require legislation and is something that we must consider as soon as possible.

Mr. Fernyhough: If my right hon. Friend is not able to obtain from the Treasury a sum larger than the £34 million to which he referred, will he ensure that the lion's share of that sum is allocated to deprived areas?

Mr. Prentice: Within the education budget, particularly within the nursery education provision, we intend to ensure that priority is given to children suffering relative social or educational disadvantages. We shall have this factor very much in mind when allocating the resources.

Mr. Cormack: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that most parents having the welfare of their children at heart would totally repudiate the suggestion of defence cuts put forward by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Short) and would prefer that the Government implemented their modest cut but that the flagrant abuse of public money which they propose to devote to milk subsidies should be stopped and the money devoted to the right hon. Gentleman's Department?

Mr. Prentice: I think that the Government have the broad support of the public in trying to reduce defence expenditure, in trying to fight inflation by the selective use of food subsidies, and in doing the best they can for education in difficult circumstances. I hope that improvement will take place on a much larger scale in future than at present.

Teacher Shortage

Mr. Moonman: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he


will give attention to ways of alleviating the teacher shortage in South-East England, with particular reference to Essex.

The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): Obviously, the raising of the school leaving age this year, which has added 250,000 pupils to the school population, has created staffing difficulties in some areas. My right hon. Friend is looking to a continuing increase in the total supply of teachers and an equitable distribution of them throughout England and Wales.

Mr. Moonman: My hon. Friend knows that part-time education became a reality under the previous administration. Therefore, would it not be sensible to introduce a crash programme to study the whole question of allowances, housing support, and so on, with particular reference to Essex?

Mr. Armstrong: As my hon. Friend knows, the question of financial and economic difficulties of the teaching force in inner London and outer London is now being considered. We regard the matter as very urgent. I assure him that we shall tackle it as quickly as possible.

Mr. McCrindle: Echoing the point made by the hon. Member for Balisdon (Mr. Moonman), is the Minister satisfied with the degree of co-operation existing between local education authorities and housing authorities, particularly in those areas of outer London and the county of Essex where the cost of purchasing a house is so high?

Mr. Armstrong: Local education authorities are certainly giving attention to this very serious problem. Many teachers cannot afford either to find a deposit or to meet the mortgage repayments required for modern housing in the Greater London area.

Mr. Arnold Shaw: Does my hon. Friend agree that there has been a severe deterioration in teacher supply, particularly during the past three years, and that the situation is now reaching crisis point? Unless something is done, I shudder to think what the future of children in the metropolis will be. Will my hon. Friend consult the Secretary of State for Employment in an effort to ease the situation?

Mr. Armstrong: I assure my hon. Friend that we recognise the urgency and seriousness of the problem. My right hon. Friend has consulted the Secretary of State for Employment but we need time to get the right answer.

Mr. Raison: What plans does the hon. Gentleman have for getting schools in the South-East, including London, back to full-time working?

Mr. Armstrong: This matter is tied up with the problem of the London allowance and the resentment felt by many teachers at the very long delay in tackling the matter.

Regional Arts Associations

Mr. Strauss: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what steps he proposes to take to strengthen the regional arts associations.

The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Hugh Jenkins): The Arts Council will, I am confident, continue to give a high priority to the support of the associations in partnership with the local authorities and other contributors. I hope to meet representatives of the associations in the coming weeks and months and get to know more of their plans and problems at first hand.

Mr. Strauss: First, I congratulate my hon. Friend on his promotion to his present position of responsibility, which, in view of his knowledge of and interest in the arts, he will no doubt occupy with distinction. As to his reply, everybody has long been anxious that these art associations should become more effective? Has my hon. Friend any specific plans to attract more funds to them, either nationally or locally?

Mr. Jenkins: I am most grateful to my right hon. Friend for the kindness of his remarks. The present income of the associations is about f1·6 million, and of that over £1·1 million is contributed by the Arts Council. My right hon. Friend will readily see that if it became possible for local authorities to increase the proportion of their contributions, it would be a consummation devoutly to be wished. We hope that when economic circumstances permit, local authorities will increase their level of contributions, so


increasing the total revenue of the associations.

Mr. Robert Cooke: As this is the first time that we have faced each other across the Dispatch Box, may I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his appointment to his important office and wish him well in continuing the good work of his three predecessors? Does he not agree that even within a restricted national arts budget the regional arts deserve a high place because of the good work that they can do, even with modest public money, in partnership with local enterprise, thus enriching the lives of many thousands of people?

Mr. Jenkins: I thank the hon. Gentleman and join in the tributes to his hon. Friend on the Front Bench, whose contribution to the arts, particularly in his non-ministerial capacity, has been very great. I also agree with the point he made. It will be our endeavour—in this respect the previous Government moved a little in that direction—to move more effectively in the direction of developing a more equal distribution of artistic economic support. It is true that we are in this respect, as in some others, over-centralised.

Mr. Faulds: May I extend to my hon. Friend my congratulations—to be honest, my qualified congratulations—on his appointment and wish him well in the job?
Would not the scope and liveliness of arts activities throughout the country be enormously enhanced if a mandatory arts rate were laid upon local authorities? Will my hon. Friend consider this matter seriously?

Mr. Jenkins: This is a question which we shall be considering in the future. May I pause again to express my warmest possible thanks for my hon. Friend's congratulations, which are particularly welcome.

Mr. Davidson: Unqualified?

Mr. Jenkins: My unqualified thanks. It is important to maintain the independence of the regional arts associations. One reason I should like to see their financial support more locally based is that if they are dependent upon a single source of revenue their independence may be ques-

tioned. If they can be supported to a greater degree from local sources, they are more able to maintain their independence. I regard that as important.

Primary Schools (Warwickshire)

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will make a statement about class sizes in primary schools in Warwickshire.

Mr. Armstrong: In January 1974, 1·3 per cent. of Warwickshire's primary school classes had over 39 pupils, and 28·1 per cent. had over 35 pupils.

Mr. Huckfield: Has my hon. Friend yet seen the very long and detailed letter from local teachers' unions and councillors in my constituency about the need for an increased programme of school building following the cut-backs imposed by the previous administration? Will he bear in mind that my constituency is now the fastest growing part of the county of Warwickshire? Does he accept that there are some strong feelings amongst my constituents in this respect?

Mr. Armstrong: I have not seen the document to which my hon. Friend refers. I thank him for letting me know. I shall certainly study it carefully. We are aware of the growth of school population and are watching carefully the need for new school places.

Dr. Boyson: Does the Minister not agree that the real statistic these days is the pupil-teacher ratio of a school, as opposed to class size, as class size can be affected by the organisation of the school?

Mr. Armstrong: Yes, the pupil-teacher ratio is important. It is also important to remind the House that there is a maximum number of children that ought to be taught in one class if the children are to have the attention they need.

The Arts

Mr. St. John-Stevas: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will make a statement of Government policy towards the arts.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: No one knows better than the hon. Member the problems of continuing and expanding support for


the arts under present conditions. As announced in the Estimates, the Government will, notwithstanding, give additional financial support to the Arts Council, the museums and galleries, and the other agencies for the encouragement of the arts. The increase is significant in real terms after allowing for the effects of inflation. The abolition of museum charges has also created a favourable climate for the development of relationships of mutual confidence between all concerned.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: After all that, will the hon. Gentleman give a date on which he will do justice to authors and introduce a public lending right, in view of the fact that before I left office all the major difficulties had been cleared out of the way and the hon. Gentleman himself, during the election campaign, pledged £5 million of Exchequer money to this good cause after he knew all about the three-day working week?

Mr. Jenkins: The hon. Gentleman says that all the difficulties were cleared out of the way. He knows that that is not the case. He knows that a number of very considerable difficulties remained to be resolved. Having said that, in spite of the difficulties that stand in the way of bringing forward a plan for a public lending right—because although the hon. Gentleman pledged support in principle, he at no time announced any detailed proposals for introducing a public lending right—the Government have advanced discussions in progress, and in due course, and I hope not too long, we shall be introducing our plan for a public lending right.

Mr. Dalyell: As one of the difficulties was in the administration of bequests in relation to the Scottish Gallery, can this situation be sorted out?

Mr. Jenkins: I hope so, but it is not the only difficulty. We do not want another museum charges situation. We do not want a scheme in which the cost of administration exceeds the amount of money going back to the authors. It is to resolve that problem—and it can be resolved—that we are taking a little time.

School Leaving Age

Mr. Hannam: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he

will propose special exemptions to the law relating to the extension of the school leaving age to 16 years of age, so as to allow those pupils wishing to proceed to Forces' training establishments to do so at 15 years of age or thereafter.

Mr. Armstrong: No, Sir.

Mr. Hannam: Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that there is a need for much greater flexibility in the imposition of this rule, especially with regard to the problems of recruitment in the Services? Does he not agree that many children and youths would gain a great deal more by attending the very high standard Services training establishments, which would alleviate some of the problems caused in the schools by children being forced to stay on, sometimes, until the age of 16½?

Mr. Armstrong: The Service training establishments do not and are not intended to provide a basic education. While the Government are concerned about recruitment, we think that 15 is too early an age to choose a career with the marked degree of commitment required by the Armed Services. We stand very much by the idea that every child has a right to five years of secondary education.

Mr. Christopher Price: Quite apart from the question of going into the Services, is my hon. Friend aware that the raising of the school leaving age to 16 has caused serious problems? Has he read the speech made to the Headmasters Association by Mr. Harry Judge, the Director of the Oxford University Department of Education, on this subject? Will he investigate seriously the problems of alternatives to school which still involve education between the ages of 14 and 16?

Mr. Armstrong: The Government are very much aware of these problems and the difficulties created for teachers, but we are mindful, too, that we are only halfway through the first year of the raising of the school leaving age. It is much too early for my right hon. Friend to make a judgment on this matter.

DISABLED PERSONS (VOTING)

Mr. Finsberg: asked the Prime Minister if he is satisfied with the coordination between the Home Office and


the Department of Health and Social Services in assessing the needs of the disabled in enabling them to cast their vote in elections.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): Yes, Sir. Ministers of the two Departments have had discussions on the matter and are considering how the present arrangements can be improved.

Mr. Finsberg: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for that reply, may I ask him to take advantage of the opportunities presented next month by the local elections in London and Scotland to call for reports to his right hon. Friends from returning officers so that we may be able to see the extent of the problem, at least in those two areas?

The Prime Minister: That is a helpful suggestion, and I shall bring it to the notice of my right hon. Friends. Some of the problems of access to polling stations have caused anxiety in the past. The hon. Gentleman or anyone else who has information about the matter, should communicate it to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, who said that she would have urgent discussions with the Minister for the Disabled.

Mr. Harry Ewing: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the problem extends beyond the disabled, and involves the aged? Will my right hon. Friend consider the inclusion in all pension books of a form to apply for a postal vote? That would eliminate all the difficulties in the way of those wanting postal votes when there are elections.

The Prime Minister: Any hon. Members who can suggest ways to improve these matters should pass on their ideas to the Home Office committee on elections. That committee discusses these matters with the parties and other concerned.

RESPONSIBILITY OF GOVERNMENT (PRIME MINISTER'S SPEECH)

Dr. Edmund Marshall: asked the Prime Minister whether he will place in the Library a copy of the public speech he made at High Wycombe on 15th March about the responsibility of government.

The Prime Minister: I did so on 18th March, Sir.

Dr. Marshall: When, in that speech, my right hon. Friend said that the Opposition were trying to split the nation in order to cover up their own divisions, did he not underestimate the honesty of Mr. Tony Kerpel, of the Greater London Young Conservatives?

The Prime Minister: I was not trying to anticipate anything—and he is a gentleman of whom I have not heard.

Sir John Hall: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I much regret that I did not know he was visiting my constituency, as I should like to have been on hand to give him a welcome appropriate to the occasion?

The Prime Minister: I am very sorry indeed. When I do visit the hon. Gentleman's constituency, we almost invariably meet and have an enjoyable time together. I am sorry that I did not give him notice. Certainly, the hon. Gentleman would have received a very warm welcome had he gone to the High Wycombe Labour Club.

Mr. Heath: On a more serious note, will the Prime Minister tell the House the constitutional basis on which he threatened the country with an election in the speech which he made on that evening?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman has obviously misunderstood the speech. I saw in the briefing given by his office that he would make a statement on the Saturday, referring to advice that he would give to the Queen— [Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman can look at the Evening Standard headline "Dictation to the Queen"—but he did not make a statement at all. He, not I, was the one who, that weekend, was attempting to trespass—not very helpfully—into constitutional matters.

Mr. Heath: May I correct the right hon. Gentleman? There is absolutely no truth in the right hon. Gentleman's statement, or in anything in the Press, that I intended to make a statement about the constitutional position. There is absolutely no truth of any kind in that. I am asking the Prime Minister—and it is of great importance to historians and constitutional historians—whether there was a constitutional basis for his threat of a


General Election—or was he not threatening a General Election?

The Prime Minister: I think that the right hon. Gentleman's manoeuvrings of that weekend will be of immense interest to historians. What I said in relation to those manoeuvrings involving electoral peril to the right hon. Gentleman was in accordance with what I said in the House —the right hon. Gentleman interrupted me a number of times during my comments—in the debate on the Gracious Speech.

CENTRAL POLICY REVIEW STAFF

Mr. Skinner: asked the Prime Minister what plans he has for the future of the Central Policy Review Staff.

The Prime Minister: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave on 28th March to the hon. Member for South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne.)— [Vol. 871, c. 622.]

Mr. Skinner: I read that answer and I was not terribly pleased with it. Is my right hon. Friend aware that the role of the Central Policy Review Staff in a Labour Government must be seriously limited? Is he further aware that we are on the Government benches and not on the Opposition side because our "Think Tank" was located at Transport House and was fed by conference decisions? As a good half back, carrying the conscience of the Labour Party, will my right hon. Friend make sure that he keeps striking forward into the opponents' penalty area and not make any back passes?

The Prime Minister: These metaphores are a little difficult to follow, and I shall give them thought in due course. When my hon. Friend studies the answer he has received today, he may like it better than the answer he read earlier. I had anxieties when the CPRS was set up in that I felt it might interfere with the responsibility of individual Departments and Ministers. I am satisfied that it has not developed in that way. I think that it is an extremely useful new initiative in government, and I hope that my hon. Friend will come round to that view in the fullness of time.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Will the Prime Minister now answer the question that he could not answer last week, namely, what is the precise division of responsibilities between the "Think Tank" on the one hand and Dr. Donoughue and his "Mafia" on the other?

The Prime Minister: We had that joke last week. The "Think Tank" is doing the normal "think-tankery" work which it was set up to do under the previous Government, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that it was valuable work. That work is continuing. There is a later Question about the work of Dr. Donoughue. The work of his unit is more to do with day-to-day questions of a policy character.

Mr. William Hamilton: Is the CPRS still reviewing the question of Concorde, or has that issue been taken out of its hands?

The Prime Minister: The CPRS is continuing to review all the important questions before the Government. Matters are not taken out of its hands, but at certain points decisions have to be taken. My right hon. Friend explained the position regarding Concorde yesterday.

OPEN GOVERNMENT

Mr. Davidson: asked the Prime Minister what is his policy towards more open government.

The Prime Minister: I am in favour of it, Sir.

Mr. Davidson: I am delighted to hear it. In that case, will the Prime Minister give a firm commitment today that he will overhaul the Official Secrets Act? Is he aware that many of us consider that Act to be a grave obstacle to open government? Does not my right hon. Friend agree that it would have been far better and in the interests of open government if the Government had agreed to an inquiry into the disquieting reports about the whole Littlejohn affair, because as long as such matters are kept secret, credence is given to rumours that may have no basis?

The Prime Minister: I know my hon. Friend's great knowledge of these matters from the work he has done in the past.


The Franks Committee report was received, I think, in September 1972. We have had an opportunity to study it and other matters for only a month, but I hope to be able to give an answer to my hon. Friend and the House in a shorter time than the previous Government took before they gave any answer at all.
I dealt with my hon. Friend's second question yesterday in a Written Answer. Even had there been an inquiry, it could not have been an open inquiry. There has never been open inquiry in such matters in the past, and in my view that is right. I myself went into the matter as thoroughly as possible, and I was completely justified in what I said, namely, that no credence should be given to certain statements made on television last week by the person concerned.

Mr. Thorpe: I do not comment on its content, but is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, in the interests of open government, the fact that the Foreign Secretary's speech to the Council of Ministers was published as a White Paper in advance was helpful to the House of Commons? Having said that, and remembering the courtesy which the right hon. Gentleman showed in 1967, in receiving his European colleagues in London and elsewhere, may I ask the Prime Minister to tell us what aspect of open government was advanced by the rather childish and churlish way in which the Foreign Secretary refused to receive the President of the European Parliament? Are we to take it that rudeness is now to be synonymous with active negotiations?

The Prime Minister: No My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will be reporting to the House on all that happened in Brussels and Luxembourg this week, and no doubt the right hon. Gentleman will want to put that question to him. He has gone a long way from the question, but I am glad that he is delighted that we have followed the practice of the Conservative Government in 1971 and our own Government in 1967 in publishing a statement of that kind.

Mr. Molloy: Does not the Prime Minister agree that, in the interests of open government, for ordinary folk to understand the political situation in Great

Britain, he ought to take it upon himself at every available opportunity to explain the recurring theme of a Labour Government always having to clear up the mess of a Tory administration? These are the things that people must understand. My right hon. Friend should not be too concerned about heavy threats from the Leader of the Opposition; the real danger was when he was Prime Minister. Will my right hon. Friend make these things clear to the British people and remain Prime Minister as long as he possibly can?

The Prime Minister: I was not aware that the Leader of the Opposition had made any threats. These matters are things to be dealt with in public statements or in speeches in the House. I hope that as regards open government we shall be able to make as many announcements as possible in the House. I cannot guarantee that it will always happen, but in the past two or three weeks we have gone to some lengths to achieve this. I hope that that will always be the position. We shall also encourage the process followed by successive Governments of publishing Green Papers—which we initiated a few years ago—and of widening the scope of Select Committees.

Mr. Higgins: If the Prime Minister is really in favour of open government, why does he refuse to publish the usual Treasury forecasts for the first half of next year, as has been done for many years past? Is it because of his fear of what the figures may show for growth or for employment?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman put that question to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor last night and received a full answer. My right hon. Friend explained the difficulties of doing this now, but any figures published which were handed to the Chancellor at the beginning of March would reflect the position left to my right hon. Friend by the Conservative Government.

AUSTRALIA (PRIME MINISTER)

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Prime Minister if he will invite the Australian Prime Minister on an official visit to London.

The Prime Minister: I look forward to seeing Mr. Whitlam when he comes to London this summer.

Mr. Dalyell: At least until June, when Mr. Whitlam goes to Moscow to discuss with the Russians the possibility of a zone of peace in the Indian Ocean, could a brake be put on the development of coral atoll bases, such as Diego Garcia?

The Prime Minister: I do not know the exact date when Mr. Whitlam will be coming to London, or whether it will be before or after his visit to Moscow, but I shall be discussing these matters with him and I am in touch already. The Government have to consider the situation in the light of discussions during the time of the previous Government, and the proposal for the zone of peace in the Indian Ocean is very much in our minds.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Whatever a "zone of peace" exactly means, will the right hon. Gentleman encourage Mr. Whitlam in the good work of collective Commonwealth defence in South-East Asia?

The Prime Minister: When the defence review is further advanced we hope to have discussions with Mr. Whitlam on all questions of defence in South-East Asia.

ENERGY CONSERVATION

Mr. Rost: asked the Prime Minister if he is satisfied with the co-ordination between Ministers concerned with energy conservation.

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Rost: Why are those Government Departments responsible for construction —whether it be schools, hospitals, local authority buildings or nationalised industry—still building with the most appallingly wasteful standards of thermal insulation? Will the new Department of Energy accept responsibility for coordination and give directives for real energy conservation in our new buildings?

The Prime Minister: I told the hon. Gentleman on similar questions last week that I thought that he was raising matters of not only great importance but of much greater importance in the present energy

situation. The question of thermal insulation is being carefully studied, as are various means of encouraging it. It would be helpful if the hon. Gentleman would take up these matters with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and with the other Departments concerned. I know that the hon. Gentleman has done a lot of work on this matter—work that will be very useful to my right hon. Friend. As there was an earlier Question about the CPRS, I should add that as members of the previous Government know, it has done a valuable amount of work on energy, including the question of thermal insulation.

Mr. Ronald Atkins: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the results of such co-ordination may be the extension of the electrification of British Rail ways?

The Prime Minister: That is a matter which will come up to the Departments. My hon. Friend can pursue the matter with those Departments.

Mr. Tebbit: In the matter of co-ordination to conserve energy, will the Prime Minister ask the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection to conserve her energies by refraining from transferring Questions to other Ministers on one day, transferring them back to herself on the next—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member has already raised that matter. It does not arise out of the Question.

Mr. Ashton: In order to conserve energy and petrol supplies, will the Prime Minister tell the Chancellor of the Exchequer that British motorists would far rather see the abolition of the £25 road fund tax and that that tax be placed on petrol, so that owners of Rolls-Royces pay far more than owners of Minis for running their motor-cars?

The Prime Minister: This matter has often been considered in the past. We all remember the efforts of the former hon. Member for Worcestershire, South, Sir Gerald Nabarro, on this question. There were many arguments about the effect on exports of making cars of a particular size. This matter will be kept continuously under review in relation to future Budgets.

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY

[2ND ALLOTTED DAY]—considered.

Orders of the Day — OFFSHORE OIL

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Coleman.]

3.32 p.m.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: By common consent, the oil discoveries off Britain's Continental Shelf represent an asset of almost incalculable value to our nation. The Department of Energy will shortly be publishing up-to-date forecasts of production, and I have no doubt that these will indicate, depending on what assumptions are made about prices, the likely benefit to the balance of payments and the prospects of this country being self-sufficient in oil. Indeed, the latest evidence suggests that offshore oil could certainly meet all our oil needs by 1980. Only today a Press release from the Burmah Oil Group has indicated a further substantial find of oil in the Ninian field. Self-sufficiency could represent an annual benefit to our balance of payments of sums of £4,000 million, or even higher.
It really is almost impossible to exaggerate the significance of this development for our people. It is impossible to overstate the crucial importance of having realistic, practical and soundly based policies for offshore oil. It is vital, too, to recognise the importance of maintaining confidence on the part of the operators so that the rhythm and momentum of exploration and development are maintained.
The purpose of this short debate is to warn the Government that by making premature, foolish and unconsidered statements they risk forfeiting confidence and losing that rhythm and momentum of exploration and development. I acknowledge straight away that the present minority Labour Government have been in office only four weeks. When he replies, the Secretary of State will no doubt argue that that is far too short a time for him and his col-

leagues to have worked out any detailed policies.
While it is important that delay in announcements should be kept to the minimum, that is not the burden of my complaint today. Indeed, I recognise that the Government face a particular difficulty in this regard. After all, they radically changed course only a few days before the General Election. I described the process whereby that change took place when I addressed the House on 13th March in the debate on the Gracious Speech. I recognise that they have abandoned the full-blooded nationalisation policies to which they had committed themselves in their document "Labour's Programme—1973." I recognise that Ministers in the Department of Energy are now searching for policies which do not commit the Government to the "full ownership and control" which they indicated in their manifesto. I recognise, too, that it takes time to study the more rational alternatives which must replace the extreme Socialist policies which the Government have sensibly abandoned.
I do not, therefore, complain if there is a short delay for reappraisal. But will the Secretary of State give some indication of when he hopes to make a full statement of the Government's policy on this matter?
However—and here I come to the point —given that there has been this shift of ground, given the fact that the Government need to consult the industry and given that such consultation is bound to take a little time, surely it would have been wise for Ministers to have observed a period of silence until they were ready to discuss their revised policies in public. That is my main complaint this afternoon. Instead of that period of silence which the circumstances would seem to have demanded, Ministers from the Prime Minister downwards have chosen to make a whole series of foolish, premature, inconsistent and, indeed, contradictory statements calculated to sow the maximum of doubt and anxiety where there ought to be certainty and confidence.
It is all too clear that what has been happening is that, in the absence of any settled policy, various Ministers have been putting forward their own ideas of what they think ought to be done, giving their own variations of policy and riding their own pet hobby-horses as if they


were at some weekend Fabian political seminar.
They are not at a Fabian political seminar. They are Ministers responsible for an industry which is currently investing hundreds of millions of pounds a year and employing thousands of skilled technicians in developing this most vital of our national assets in some of the most arduous and testing conditions in the world.
As I read the speeches which have been made by the Government I gain the impression that they do not realise the extent to which every word they now say is studied with extreme care by all those involved in this industry. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State that the industry is becoming increasingly confused and anxious about what the present minority Labour Government are up to. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. William Hamilton) may have his own anxieties. Perhaps he may also agree that in the circumstances silence would have been golden.
It is necessary to spell out briefly but with some particularity what it is that Ministers have said which is giving rise to this concern, which is, I assure the Secretary of State, very real.
I take, first, the issue of State participation. I start with Lord Balogh and his article in the Banker which was published shortly after the General Election, although written before it. He referred, as had others before him, to the Norwegian system of carried interest—I quote it as he wrote— "between 30 per cent. and 50 per cent.". While there may be arguments about the merits of carried interest as a system of ensuring Government control, it is right for me to say now from this Dispatch Box that when we were in Government we certainly did not rule out a minority carried interest as one way of securing the public interest.
But what has happened since then? First, we had the Prime Minister speaking in Leith just before the election, when he made it clear that he was envisaging not a 30 or 50 per cent. carried interest, as Lord Balogh had done, but a majority stake. He said:
We are going to make it 51/49 per cent. to ensure control.

The House will recognise that that is a totally different matter. It envisages the companies as junior partners, and by itself totally transforms their prospects, and by itself is already giving rise to anxieties.
Since the election these waters have become further muddied. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Energy, in the debate on 13th March, referred not to 51 per cent. but to 60 per cent. or even 100 per cent. He was referring to a number of Middle Eastern and other oil-producing countries and said:
full nationalisation seems to be possible there."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th March 1974; Vol. 870, c. 342.]
The implication was that if full nationalisation was possible there, it will be possible here to. Is that what he meant?

Mr. Tam Dalyell: rose—

Mr. Jenkin: If I may be allowed to finish this part of my remarks, I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman.
I do not think the Secretary of State for Energy meant that at all. He must know that the conditions in this country are entirely different from those that apply in the Arab oil-producing countries. If he did not mean it, why did he say it? It has served only to exacerbate doubts.

Mr. Dalyell: If we are on the subject of implications, I should like to know what is implied by this attack on my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy and the suggestion that we somehow want the companies to be junior partners. Is it the Opposition's view that the companies should be senior partners and behave as such? Let us get that clear.

Mr. Jenldn: The companies are investing huge amounts of money which they are raising in the market and are taking considerable risks.

Mr. Russell Kerr: Untaxed.

Mr. Jenkin: Taxation is an entirely separate matter. We have said that, although it is the right, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Barber) when Chancellor of the Exchequer made clear a year ago, and the duty of any Government to secure


that the interests of the whole community are properly protected and we derive a proper share, this would not necessarily require taking a majority share in these companies.
The Secretary of State for Energy said only that it might be possible. Let me refer to what was said only a week afterwards by Lord Balogh, referring to the matter of participation in a speech in the House of Lords. This passage of his speech is so remarkable, that it is worth reading in full:
— I must point out that the Sheikh of Abu Dhabi, the Emir of Dubai and the Sheikh of Kuwait have succeeded in getting the companies agreeably and in a friendly way to agree first to a 61 per cent. and lately a 90 and 100 per cent. takeover, or nationalisation—whatever we want to call it—of their holdings in those companies. I do not believe that there could be any doubt that this can and should be done."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 20th March 1974; Vol. 350, c. 258.]
There is no question of a mild 30 per cent. carried interest there. It is a question of a 100 per cent. take-over which "can and should be done". Is that the Government's policy? Is it seriously envisaged that that is what they are to do? Or is it just loose talking by a noble Lord who is more familiar with the common rooms of Oxford than he is with the corridors of power in Whitehall?
Do the companies—despite what I believe were genuine attempts by the Prime Minister and others to indicate a radical change of direction during the election—still envisage having to face the 100 per cent. nationalisation of which Lord Balogh spoke in the House of Lords? If I am asked to give my honest opinion, I do not think that Ministers do so intend. But why on earth do they say so? Do they not realise that these statements are studied and read with great care? It is sheer foolishness to let ideas of that sort gain currency.

Mr. Russell Kerr: I am sorry that the prospects for the community of having a majority controlling interest in these developments so upsets the right hon. Gentleman. Is he aware that this is the standard condition of contract in the Norwegian areas, and, if that is the case, why in Heaven's name cannot we in this country at least have that provision?

Mr. Jenkin: On another occasion I shall perhaps take the opportunity to

explain to the hon. Gentleman the real differences and distinctions that exist between this country, which is a major industrial country with a severe balance of payments problem, and Norway, which is a small country entirely differently placed with regard to its major oil discoveries. Perhaps I can develop that subject on another occasion, but not now since this is a brief debate.
Let me take another proposal; namely that there should be a State buying agency. On this subject we seem to be in a situation of total confusion. The Prime Minister said in Leith that, as well as State participation, he envisaged a monopoly buyer of oil on the Continental Shelf—
a United Kingdom hydrocarbon corporation with exclusive power like the Gas Board.
Lord Balogh in his Banker article said nothing of the sort. He mentioned a national hydrocarbon corporation but he saw it having an entirely different function. He saw it as a holding company for carried interest; he made no mention at all of any monopoly buyer. Yet when we get back to the Queen's Speech and the Prime Minister's remarks, he wanted both. I quote the Prime Minister as follows:
the authority buying the oil when it is landed … should also be the body representing the public interest in the majority participation in the process of getting the oil." —[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th March 1974; Vol. 870, c. 82.]
Yet the very next day the Secretary of State for Energy, who devoted nearly three columns of HANSARD to discussing the policy for North Sea oil, said not a word about a buying corporation or anything of the sort. Yet again in the House of Lords in the following week Lord Balogh, recognising that it was becoming party policy to say something about the matter, though unconvinced about this possible alternative to State participation, said:
Another course is that of a State buying agency",
and went on:
The Government have an open mind on all these and other possibilities."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 20th March 1974; Vol. 350, c. 259.]
The Government mind is not so much open; rather it is a collander spewing out words in all directions.
We have been treated to some wild ideas. I assure the Secretary of State that this is causing serious concern to many operators in the North Sea. The Prime Minister, speaking at Leith, spoke of
a separate buying corporation for each area —one for Scotland, one for the north-east, one for East Anglia and, when we get oil and gas from the Western seas, one for Wales.
The right hon. Gentleman told the Press that he was
floating an idea which attracted him personally.
Yet when we got back to the House after the election, the right hon. Gentleman quoted the passage which I have cited and said:
The words I have just used are the words I used in the General Election. It was on those that we fought the election with regard to gas and oil.
I challenge the Secretary of State for Energy to tell the House when he first became aware that this idea of separate buying corporations for each area was firm party policy. Of course it never was—and I hope that it never will be.
The Prime Minister has also indulged in wilder flights of fancy. In the debate on the Queen's Speech, after hinting that the national hydrocarbon corporation would go into distribution of oil products as well as other fields, he said:
For example, if such an authority felt it desirable on economic and social grounds to provide low-cost or assisted passenger transport services—for example, in remote rural areas—it could adjust its petrol or diesel selling prices for that purpose."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th March 1974; Vol. 870, c. 82–3.]
I would remind the right hon. Gentleman that before one can sell petrol or diesel from crude oil one must refine it. Does the right hon. Gentleman envisage the national hydrocarbon corporation going into refining? Or what did he mean? I do not think the idea was thought out at all; it is a bizarre one.
This is not my main point. This was certainly not the Government's idea, because only a week or so later the Secretary of State for Scotland put an entirely different and much more grandiose idea of how he saw Scotland benefiting from the oil. Not for him the idea of an East of Scotland hydrocarbon board providing cheap diesel fuel to carry the bus revelers

coming home from the Ball of Kirriemuir. He said something quite different:
I want to see coming direct to Scotland —and it could be done through a development fund or bank—our share of the oil revenues, to be used for the benefit of these areas of Scotland that have suffered dereliction, neglect and decay.
I agree with the comment in The Guardian:
In pursuing this line, there were moments when Mr. Ross sounded more like a Nationalist than a Socialist.
It is very strange that the estwhile hammer of the Nats should the next moment be wooing the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mrs. Ewing). I am sure that we can expect to hear the right hon. Gentleman singing the "Eriskay Love Lilt" at any minute!
I have said enough to indicate the sheer foolishness and irresponsibility of what Ministers have been saying. They have no business to behave like that. For the time being, they are members of Her Majesty's Government. They are bound by the doctrine of Cabinet responsibility and answerable to this House for their policies. If they have no policy—and it is clear that they have not yet got a policy—they should keep silent until they have. If they do not keep silent, if they persist in airing unconsidered views in public, they must not be surprised if investment begins to falter, if exploration slows down and if the sense of urgency begins to fade.
This is an international industry, and what I am about to say is based on some fairly wide consultations with those who are investing hundreds of millions of pounds in exploring and developing our offshore oil assets.
They point out that the oil industry is an international industry—perhaps the most international of all. Other countries are developing their offshore oil and gas deposits. All over the world the energy crisis is stimulating new exploration. New discoveries are being made and new sources of oil are being found. By the end of this year it is expected that the United States will be opening up the Continental Shelf off its eastern seaboard for exploration and development.
Britain cannot do without the skills and expertise of the industry to develop our offshore resources. Of course, it is right to ensure that the British people


derive the maximum benefit from it. But it must be done in such a way as not to deter continuing investment by the companies. I must warn the Government that if they continue to make these wild, unconsidered and inconsistent statements they will find that, instead of safeguarding the public interest, which I believe is their genuine intention, they will have damaged it by sheer wanton irresponsibility.
I want to refer briefly to the one decision that the Government have made in this respect. It is the decision not to proceed with the Coastal Sites Bill foreshadowed by the previous administration. The Government's intention is to let the Drumbuie planning inquiry take its course, and the Government must now spell out the implications of that decision. The Secretary of State for Energy failed to do this in the debate on 13th March. Therefore, I return to the charge.
Let me remind the House what is at stake. The consortium of Taylor Woodrow and Mowlem has been seeking a site to build Condeep production platforms. This needs very deep water close inshore. These platforms are required for the deepest oil fields in the Shetland Basin —possibly for the Brent field. The Loch Carron area provides the only feasible sites close to deep water. If permission for development could be given by the end of April and a site could be made available soon after that, the construction of the first concrete platform could begin next spring. It could be completed and installed in the oil field during 1977. Production of oil could start in that year, and we could get full output in 1978.
If planning permission is delayed even until the autumn of this year—in other words, by only a few months—the whole process is put back not just by a few months but by a full year because it will have missed the weather window in 1977.

Mr. George Lawson: Is not the right hon. Gentleman merely arguing the case which has been advanced by the developers? Can he show the House some expert independent opinion which justifies the arguments which he is advancing so confidently?

Mr. Jenkin: I am putting the case on this as it was put to Ministers before the

General Election by the consultants whom the Department employed to advise it on this highly technical and difficult matter.
If we miss the weather window in 1977, we lose all the production in that year and a good deal of production in 1978. Again, the advice given to Ministers in the previous Government was that this would cost about £100 million worth of oil production a year. That is £100 million off the balance of payments, which would be a direct addition to our payments deficit.

Mr. Dalyell: Whose advice?

Mr. Jenkin: I have indicated the source of the advice.

Mr. Dalyell: Taylor Woodrow.

Mr. Jenkin: Either the Secretary of State for Energy or the Secretary of State for Scotland must now tell the House clearly whether the intention is to ensure the installation on site in the oil field of that first Condeep production platform in 1977. There must be no ifs and buts. If it is their intention, how is it intended to ensure that? Alternatively, are the Government willing to lose £100 million worth of oil by delaying installation to 1978?
That is the choice that the Government face. It was the one that they faced when they decided not to proceed with the Bill. But they must now tell the House their attitude on this. We have a right to be told. I recognise that it is easy to earn the plaudits of the environmentalists on this difficult issue. Having done so, the Government must be prepared to spell out the cost to the nation.
This debate is on the motion for the Adjournment, and the Opposition do not intend to divide the House. But that does not mean that the issues which I have raised and those which other right hon. and hon. Members will raise in the course of the debate are not of the utmost importance to the country. The debate gives the Secretary of State a chance to reassure the industry and indicate when he intends to announce his policy. It also gives him the opportunity to answer the detailed questions that I have asked. He is dealing with one of Britain's most crucial national assets. He


must show the House, the industry and the whole country a greater degree of responsibility and awareness than he and his right hon. Friends have demonstrated so far.

Mr. Dalyell: Before the right hon. Gentleman sits down, will he tell the House what advice—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman has sat down.

3.59 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Eric Varley): The Government welcome the topic which the Opposition have chosen for their first Supply Day debate. However, I must admit that at first I was a little baffled why they chose to debate offshore oil. After all, they raised it as an issue in the election and they whooped it up for all that it was worth. But it rebounded on them, and they lost votes because of it. They actually lost a Secretary of State.
Why, then, have they come back to it today? I have come to the conclusion that, like a released convict, they have an irrepressible urge to return to the scene of the crime and to try to work out the mistake they made that got them "copped".
To adopt a famous saying of the late Hugh Gaitskell, they will fight and fight and lose again. On this issue the people of Great Britain—of England, Scotland and Wales—support this Government's approach and, if the Opposition do not believe me, they have their way of finding out, and they are welcome to try it.
I agree with the right hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Jenkin) that offshore oil is a great treasure. It is also a great bonanza and bounty which has been provided at a most critical time in our history. It could be described as the adrenalin pumped into our veins which could provide the regenerative force which our economy now requires. But it will not last for ever. However, during the decades when it is flowing it will help to bridge the energy gap and it will be the salvation of our balance of payments when other less fortunate industrialised countries are bearing the full brunt of international oil price increases.
Her Majesty's Government are determined that there will accrue to the British people their rightful share of the proceeds from offshore oil. This, for reasons which I simply do not understand, is something which the Tory Party do not seem to want. It is amazing that a party which for generations filched the Union Jack as its election emblem wants the Union Jack over the oil rigs in the North Sea to fly at half mast.
The Opposition have attacked us because when it comes to North Sea oil they are not satisfied with our record in office over the past four weeks. The right hon. Gentleman rather suggested that he would not press us on this occasion, because he realised the difficulties involved, yet he proceeded to put the most detailed questions, expecting answers this afternoon. After their record of failure and procrastination over nearly four years, the Opposition have got a nerve to act in that way.
They criticised the previous Labour Government for having set a precedent on licensing policy—a precedent which they followed. If we were wrong on that, why did the Opposition not change the rules? After all, the round of licensing which really mattered was the fourth round, in 1971. The Opposition were completely responsible for that round, which was the first round after recognition of the true potential in the North Sea for oil—not gas, which up to then had attracted most attention. Yet the Opposition handed out licences in 1971 as if they were detergent coupons.
The Leader of the Opposition the other day warned us against the perils of retrospective action. We do not need his warnings. We understand the position perfectly well. The last man in the House who has the right to warn us about retrospection is the right hon. Gentleman who through feckless folly got all this retrospection talk going.
One of the most formidable documents ever produced by a Select Committee of the House was the report on North Sea oil and gas by the Public Accounts Committee under the chairmanship of my right hon. Friend the Paymaster-General. The right hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Barber) preened himself on having reacted quickly to that report by the proposals he made in his Budget a short time later to plug the hole through


which revenue was gushing. He went on to explain that the issues were too complex for him to legislate in last year's Finance Bill, but the issues went on being too complex in the year that followed. After all, it was not necessary, as I understand it, for him to wait for another Budget to do it. He could have taken action without waiting for his next Budget.
In any case, as my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer pointed out last week, the right hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale had decided not to meet another point made by the Public Accounts Committee in relation to group relief for capital allowances on investment unconnected with the North Sea.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: May I qualify that, as there is a misunderstanding here about what my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) said. He accepted the main burden of what the Public Accounts Commitee recommended but indicated that the matter which the right hon. Gentleman has in mind was still under consideration, and I can say that that matter had not been decided in the sense which the right hon. Gentleman has just described. Exactly where the ring fence should be drawn was being considered up until the last minute. That should be put on record.

Mr. Varley: I got an impression from the right hon. Gentleman this afternoon that we ought to have policies ready to parade before the House. He has certainly given this impression to myself and to many of my right hon. and hon. Friends. It is right and natural that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor should wish to consider this matter within the context of our overall policies, especially as he now has the invaluable advantage of the assistance of my right hon. Friend the Paymaster-General.
However, the Opposition do not stop there. They now question the Government's estimates, and some of the statements made, about oil reserves and control in the North Sea. This afternoon the right hon. Gentleman went so far as to take the unprecedented step of involving in political controversy one of the most uncontroversial political figures in public life, my noble Friend Lord Balogh. The Opposition seemed to detect some inconsistency in statistics which he has

put forward, as against other available figures. With the Opposition's record in this matter, I am surprised at them.
The hon. Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Boardman) may recall that during the debate on the Queen's Speech I intended to refer to him in the most friendly way but was prevented from doing so by a rather lengthy intervention from the Leader of the Opposition. I wish to refer to a forecast that the hon. Gentleman made last year when he was Minister for Industry. He forecast a target production figure for North Sea oil of 25 million tons by 1975.
I am sorry to have to tell the House that there is no chance of that figure being achieved next year. There has been a slippage due principally to the failure to deliver vital equipment and supplies on time, and in consequence next year's production of North Sea oil is likely to be not 25 million tons but more like 5 million tons. Any slippage is of course disappointing, but this is only a temporary setback, I think, and we shall be getting substantial supplies by 1976 and we shall be well on target for the production previously forecast for 1980. I do not wish to criticise the hon. Gentleman for getting it wrong. After all, it was his hon. Friend the hon. Member for Harrow, Central (Mr. Grant) who speaking from this Dispatch Box, almost exactly a year ago, in a North Sea oil debate, rightly declared,
Forecasting is anything but an exact science. Only time will tell whether the Government or their critics are on target."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 30th March 1973; Vol. 853, c. 1752.]
His hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery), also speaking as a Government Minister, was even more frank when he said in February 1973,
In the drive being given by the Government to encourage industry to participate in supply to the North Sea, I do not think it matters one iota whether the Government or IMEG are correct on the exact amount of oil that may he delivered by any given date, whether 1975 or 1978."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th February 1973; Vol. 850, c. 196.]
The House will remember that it was the hon. Member for Honiton who only eight months ago confided in us, saying,
My hon. Friend the Minister for Industry and I for a number of months have been making it clear that we do not regard it as an energy crisis."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th July 1973; Vol. 860, c. 913.]


I am fully confident that the House will accept that in reminding it of these quotations the furthest thing from my mind is to try to make cheap debating points. The message is much simpler when one considers what the right hon. Gentleman said this afternoon. The message is really: "Lay off Lord Balogh." The right hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford tried it some time ago, in 1964, when a back bencher, and did not emerge with much credit. Therefore I have some advice for him—in future lay off Lord Balogh.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: That is a very interesting proposition. Is he advising the House and those in the industry not to pay the slightest attention to what his noble Friend says? If that is what he is saying, it is a pretty strange doctrine.

Mr. Varley: The right hon. Gentleman and I came into the House at the same time and I am simply reminding him that in 1964, from a position on that side of the House, he made an attack upon Lord Balogh which I think he regretted. I am just advising him in the most friendly way that perhaps he should be careful and that what he should do is record that the open season on Lord Balogh is over—[Interruption.] I certainly want to give the House the up-to-date information as quickly as possible. We shall be publishing a new version of the Brown Book on North Sea oil next month; the right hon. Gentleman could at least have waited for that.
But present forecasts look very good. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the Press announcement by Burmah this afternoon about Ninian which also is very encouraging. I felt it right to tell the House that there had been a slippage in output of oil from the North Sea. This initial slippage underlines the need for everything to be done to ensure that delivery dates and production programmes are maintained. Accordingly, after consultation with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, I have decided on a substantial expansion of the Offshore Supplies Office with particular emphasis on extending its operations in Scotland and other areas where more industrial development is needed.
It is now our intention that the Offshore Supplies Office, which was set up in 1973, should ensure that British industry is given full opportunities to supply and equip offshore operations. The main responsibility lies with the industry itself to seize these opportunities and to establish a leading position in the rapidly growing international business of offshore supplies.
There are hopeful signs that many companies will succeed in this field. However, I am also concerned that the Government should play their full part in encouraging this development and I am reviewing what more we should do in consultation with the Secretary of State for Scotland and other Ministers. As more staff are recruited, my intention is to establish the Offshore Supplies Office headquarters in Glasgow, with representation in other industrial regions and in London. The detailed arrangements will be subject to consultation with the staff concerned. I know that this decision will be welcomed in Scotland.
I hope that Scottish industry will increase its efforts to secure the major share of offshore supplies and contracts for which it is well placed to compete. I am sure that the industry in the North of England and elsewhere will also be encouraged to gain additional orders for Britain by the measures that I have announced.

Mr. Peter Rost: The Secretary of State's announcements will no doubt be most welcome, but what will he do to ensure that enough British steel is made available to give British industry the opportunity to play a bigger part?

Hon. Members: After the three-day week?

Mr. Varley: The answer has just been given by my hon. Friend. There would have been more steel available for North Sea operations had we not been on the three-day week.
The announcement that I have just made is the first of what will be a series of decisions as our policy on North Sea oil emerges. In fulfilling our election pledge
to secure the maximum public advantage from our own resources",
we shall seek to achieve this with the fullest possible consultation with the oil


companies. In our dealings with private industry, we shall not emulate the previous Government in the spirit of vengeful confrontation with which they sought to harry and humiliate the publicly-owned coal, steel and electricity industries. Our aim will not be private gain but the public good.

Mr. J. Bruce-Gardyne: Before the right hon. Gentleman leaves the question of offshore supplies, may I ask whether he is aware, or, like the Under-Secretary of State apparently, unaware, that American offshore operators in the Gulf of Texas do not allow any but American-registered shipping to provide offshore services? What is he doing either to change that embargo or to apply it in respect of British shipping in North Sea waters?

Mr. Varley: We are looking at all these problems. We are certainly considering strengthening the Offshore Supplies Office. That is what we are setting out to do, and my announcement today is the first step.
I sometimes marvel at the effrontery of the Conservative Party in accusing us of creating uncertainty among those who wish to invest in North Sea oil. This is from a party which executed so many U-turns in its industrial policy that business men did not know whether they were coming or going. I sat on the Opposition Front Bench and watched them as they abolished investment grants and then, after a decent interval, brought them back. I watched them as they brought the butcher into Upper Clyde and then performed emergency surgery.
To his credit, the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) moved from the Government to the back benches while all these somersaults took place. He is on record in a Sunday Times article only a week or two ago as saying that it created great uncertainty and inflicted great damage on British industry. So let them not criticise us if we take the necessary time to frame the policy for oil which suits our national needs. After all, if we were to come out immediately, as the right hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford suggested, with a fully fledged scheme, they would accuse us of instant Government and gimmickry.
When Britain becomes an oil-producing country on an international scale, this Government are determined that other oil-producing countries will not look down on us as an under-developed country cousin scrambling for the morsels that the oil companies let us have. The established oil-producing countries, where they are not nationalising outright, are ensuring a massive share of oil revenues for their Governments. It is incredible that the right hon. Gentleman should suggest that we have no right to look at this matter and to take our time to come up with our plans.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: The Secretary of State has been accusing me of saying things which I expressly stated at the beginning of my speech I was not going to say. I realise that perhaps he did not recognise exactly the tenor of my accusations and charges, but he should acknowledge that I said it was right that the Government should take a little time over this.

Mr. Varley: The impression that the right hon. Gentleman gave was certainly not that. Let us look at some of the facts with which we must deal. At present prices, by 1980, pre-tax profits from the North Sea might be at least £3,000 million a year—and I do not have to tell the House that these prices could rise. Of these vast sums, current taxes and royalties will collect less than half, compared with between 75 and 90 per cent. take by the OPEC countries, and about 60 per cent. of the profits will be remitted abroad to foreign companies. If we allowed this situation to continue, the benefit to our balance of payments would be minimal and we should get the lowest take of any oil-producing country.
I always read the Leader of the Opposition's speeches carefully. I was particularly moved by his plea to the Conservative Central Council last Saturday when he said,
We should let the Tory lion roar.
When he is denouncing the Liberal Party or facing the Young Conservatives or dealing with Mr. Enoch Powell from a safe distance, the Leader of the Opposition can summon up a passable imitation of a roar, but when it comes to Britain's oil he reminds me of that famous speech by


Bottom in "A Midsummer Night's Dream":
I will aggravate my voice so that I will roar you as gently as any sucking dove; I will roar you as 'twere any nightingale".
In the right hon. Gentleman's opinion, Britain has no right to behave like an independent State. He thinks we should be looking over our shoulder all the time. Six weeks ago in Edinburgh the Leader of the Opposition tried to send shivers down our spines with hallucinations of the Americans nationalising British Petroleum's share of Alaskan oil. Is President Nixon now to replace Mr. Mick McGahey as the right hon. Gentleman's favourite bogyman? Is the Opposition—

Mr. Anthony Fell: Are the Opposition.

Mr. Varley: There has been an argument over many years about whether we refer to Government and Opposition in the plural or singular.
The Opposition are entitled to their allocation of Supply Days. If they are scared to debate housing, the Common Market or industrial relations—very well. If the Opposition want to use their Supply Days like this when we have been in Government for only four weeks—expecting us to come forward with carefully worked out plans—then we shall know how to treat them. We shall listen to the scare stories of hon. Members opposite and treat them for what they are worth.
We welcome any opportunity to stand up for Britain and the right of the British people to derive the true benefit from this precious national asset. When we are ready we shall present our policies on taxation for the approval of the House. We are confident that we shall meet with the approval not only of the House but of the British people as a whole.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I understand that two more Front Bench speakers will try to catch my eye before seven o'clock. That does not leave very much time for back bench Members. I hope that their speeches will be short today, unlike yesterday.

4.21 p.m.

Mr. Russell Fairgrieve: This House is what it is because of the varying characters and personali-

ties of those who pass through it, not the least being my predecessor in Aberdeenshire, West, Colonel Colin Mitchell. Although his sojourn in this place was brief, it was not uneventful, and he added his touch of individuality to its annals. Whereas most mortals go though a political process varying in length of time before being elected and then, throughout the years, are either re-elected, rejected or retire, he seemed suddenly to decide to go to Parliament and then to leave Parliament. It was a sort of Aden without the pipes and drums. Thereafter it must have been difficult to tame such a wild spirit and to ask him to sit and listen and then to vote and vote throughout the night on some aspect of, say, local government in Glasgow, when the frustrations of his thoughts would be turning to the "barren rocks". He will be remembered by his many friends in this House who must wish him well in his new venture in a part of Scotland where the air is always fresh and the mountains ever visible.
The constituency which he had and now I have the honour to represent is a mixture of the traditional and the new. It is some 2,000 square miles in size and stretches from about eight miles of coastline north of Aberdeen back into the Grampian mountains beyond Ballater, Balmoral and Braemar. The electorate is 54,000 and rising at just over 1,000 per year so it is presumably a future candidate for the Boundaries Commission.
This continuing rise is, of course, not unconnected with the subject of this debate. Of the electorate, about two-thirds live in the many towns, villages and farms of this large area and one-third in the urban ring around the city of Aberdeen. Agriculture is the predominant industry in the larger and traditional part of the constituency, and those not directly involved in it are, in most instances, dependent upon it or provide services to it.
We are the largest production area in the country for beef and grow the best beef in the world. We produce also pigs, sheep, milk and grain and are served by a marketing organisation of great renown and competence. The one-third who live in the urban ring mainly commute to Aberdeen and practise their various professions there, or teach in university or college or work in industry.


There are also resident families from Canada, Holland and America, and other countries working for the various oil companies now established in Aberdeen.
As regards other industries, we are most famous for paper making, of which there are four substantial mills. We have some well-known distilleries and our beautiful countryside is an increasing attraction for tourism. Also, and in the current political "out word", the monarchy has a holiday home in our constituency. There is a nationally known bacon curing factory and an internationally known textile firm, where I had the privilege of serving my own apprenticeship many years ago.
This debate is about oil, and to that I now turn. Other speakers will be discussing technicalities, figures, outputs and problems, but I would like to paint the canvas with a broader brush, to look at how we should treat this oil in a longer time scale. There is no doubt that estimates of the amount are continually being revised upwards, and it is also possible that, as well as off the East Coast of Scotland, there is oil under the sea to the North of Scotland and to the West of the United Kingdom, whether that is called off the coast of Scotland, England, Ireland or Wales.
I want to speak of this oil in a Scottish and in a United Kingdom context. From the United Kingdom viewpoint it is vital that this oil flows as quickly as possible because of the fundamental difference it will make to our balance of payments and to our energy problems Any comparison with Norway is comparing like with unlike, as it does not have an energy or payments problem with its current population and industrial setup.
I cannot believe that it is beyond the wit of man in the last quarter of the twentieth century to get the oil flowing without damage to country or conservation interests. After all, Scotland is about the most sparsely populated country in Western Europe and in the North there is still room to move. With a coastline in Argyll as long as that of France, surely we can locate the service functions and construction platforms in areas which will not spoil amenity. Planning procedures must be speeded up and objections, after an immediate and fair hearing, must be resolved with haste.

Oil means jobs in Scotland, and for the first time since the war we are seeing net emigration turn to net immigration. No one with Scotland's interests at heart should gainsay this.
Looking at these new horizons, I worry at the methods we have been using for so long now in the United Kingdom to try to help such areas as Scotland. We give grants to firms that would expand anyway and we support special areas to which businesses would go regardless. We give incentives to capital expenditure which would take place without such subsidies. If all these huge amounts had been channelled into what is now called the infrastructure, how much better would the end result now be.
Consider oil and Aberdeen. British Petroleum, Shell or Burmah are not there because the grants are better in Aberdeen than in Guildford. The support they want is in the one area where it has not been forthcoming and that is in communications. Time does not permit me to analyse rail and air traffic, although in the former fundamental reappraisal is now absolutely necessary and in the latter case we might well be considering smaller planes and shuttle services, as well as an immediate speed-up with the building of a proper airport at Aberdeen.
But I will comment on roads Aberdeen, the oil capital of Europe, is connected to Edinburgh, the capital city of Scotland, by 120 miles of road, of which 20 miles are motorway and 10 miles dual carriageway, but the remaining 90 miles of single track go right through the city of Perth and meander along through half a dozen towns and a score of villages. Heavy traffic shares the road with farm tractors and hay floats, and now, as the juggernauts pull out of Coatbridge, Motherwell and Airdrie, night and day, laden with pipes and equipment for the North Sea, these picturesque villages are rattling to bits. Tempers are fraying and frustration is building up fast.
I would not want to become a road bore in this House, but one is tempted to take a leaf out of the book of the Roman Senator Cato who, whether he was speaking on the Roman equivalent of the health service or defence estimates, prefaced every speech with the words "Carthage must be destroyed". Fortunately for this House Delencla est Carthago scans better


than "When will the road to Aberdeen be dual carriageway?"
I said earlier that I wanted to look at oil for Scotland in a longer time scale, and by that I mean what happens if and when it runs out—say, around the end of this century. Here we must look at the lessons of history. At the time of the first Industrial Revolution three natural resources were discovered in the West of Scotland. These were iron, coal and deep water. Thus the great shipbuilding industries of the Clyde grew up. But something else grew with them. It was knowledge and prestige so that throughout the world the profession of ship engineers became dominated by Scotsmen. We are now being given another chance after generations that have been too often characterised by a tendency to export our brains and rely on outside help at home.
This new exciting industry is on our doorstep and we in Scotland are best placed to learn from it. So, when at the turn of this century men wish to drill for oil in the China Seas or off the South American coast and prospectors ask "Where can we get the necessary technicians and firms?" the answer will automatically be "If you want the best offshore engineers and ancillary services in the world, you can get them only from Scotland."
How can the Government help in this process? The answer is there for all to see. Only America could afford to send men to the moon with all the romance entailed. The cost was fantastic but the technical spin-off invaluable. Completely new computer techniques and micro-circuitry were learned. Here we speak of Concorde and the millions of pounds it will lose being justified by the long-term gains in aeronautical engineering. But oil will be profitable. What a godsend for Government investment. Aberdeen University has established a chair of offshore engineering and the Heriot-Watt College of Edinburgh University has followed suit. Why should not there be massive Government investment, in the infrastructure, particularly communications. What about the Navy? Could it not be interested in developing new under-water techniques? What about the Royal Air

Force? Could it not be perfecting a new dimension of helicopter practice? A new technical college lies under the North Sea. Why not learn in it? How much longer must the country await realisation of the goals that are lying within its reach?
This oil presents greater immediate prizes and long-term opportunities to this country than Concorde, Maplin or the Chunnel. Have we got our expenditure priorities right? Here we have this treasure and this opportunity off our shores and still we persist in retaining the paths to it as a somewhat sophisticated form of obstacle race. The time is long overdue for the country, regardless of political party or dogma, to admit fault and remedy the situation by a massive and realistic approach to the one obvious new national asset that has hit us this century.

4.35 p.m.

Mr. David Lambie: I congratulate the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. Fairgrieve) on his maiden speech. I knew his predecessor very well as a man of independence who sometimes created trouble in the Whips' Office. I hope that the hon. Member will carry on the same policy and will prove himself to be of independent mind. He took the opportunity today of speaking in a debate that vitally affects not only his constituency but his country. It was a well thought out and reasoned speech, and I hope that he will make many more like it in this Parliament.
At the beginning of the debate the right hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Jenkin) complained that Ministers were speaking too much on the subject of North Sea oil. He said that they had broken some form of secrecy that had been maintained by his Government. My complaint as a back bencher is that Ministers have not so far spoken enough. They have not told us at this stage what the Government intend to do, although I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for stating that they are still prepared to carry out the policy on North Sea oil that was put before the country at the election.
I am glad that my right hon. Friends are now speaking out on North Sea oil because I believe that the oil companies have played one of the biggest confidence


tricks in history in negotiating the agreements they struck with the last Government. The Conservatives are certainly afraid that people might know of the agreements they made with the oil companies. Although in 1964 they enacted the Continental Shelf Act which vested ownership of oil and gas in the State, they object to following up that policy and nationalising the oil itself. In order to overcome the tremendous financial problems of the United Kingdom, particularly the tremendous problem of the balance of payments, they sold out to the oil companies at figures that no other country would tolerate. They did not tell us about the corporation tax which would not be paid by the oil companies. They did not tell us about the blocks which had been licensed too cheaply compared to what other countries were getting for similar deposits. They did not tell us that too many foreign companies were able to avoid British income tax by offsetting losses in other areas, and they did not tell us about the disgraceful situation on royalties.
I am glad for the United Kingdom that Ministers are now speaking up, because the more the people speak out the more we shall know about the tremendous reserves which are contained under the North Sea. I have figures of the reserves but they may well be out of date. Every newspaper article shows that the reserves are rising. My figures are that there are beneath the North Sea 30,000 million barrels of oil worth approximately £130,000 million—four times the National Debt. These figures become even more fantastic in view of the returns the oil companies are getting and will get. The annual pre-tax profits of the known Scottish oil reserves will be not, as my right hon. Friend has stated, £3,000 million a year, but, on the latest figures, £4,000 million a year.
I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister will also listen to Lord Balogh, because these are his figures. The figure of £4,000 million a year is calculated on the basis of the current price of about $10 a barrel. If the price goes up —and oil has been sold at about $17 a barrel—it will yield pre-tax profits from the known reserves of about £6,800 million a year. These are fantastic sums. I realise that other parties in Scotland are pointing out what a tremendous difference the money would make if it were

spent totally within Scotland. I do not wish to enter into that argument now. I want the Government to spell out their intentions and give us a definite timetable of the process to take over the known assests from the oil companies and put them into the hands of the people of the United Kingdom.
The ownership of oil has changed within the past two or three decades. The system used to be that the large international oil companies would take over large tracts of land or areas of sea and develop them in the best interests of the companies and the landowners. As a result there are now multi-millionaire sheikhs and other multi-millionaires controlling the oil companies.
The Government would do well to consider the changes which have taken place in other areas. For example, one of the major oil producers in 1951, the Iran Government, nationalised all oil. In 1954, as a result of international pressure, the Iran Government rescinded that decision and gave back control to the oil companies. In 1972 the Shah refused to join in the campaign for participation or part-ownership of the oil concessions in his own country. He refused to join the march forward of the other Arab countries. However, last year even the Shah had to come forward with a plan to nationalise the entire production operation of the major oil companies. At the same time he guaranteed them supplies for the next 20 years.
I was disappointed when my right hon. Friend gave the impression, when he came to say what the Government intended to do, that he was waiting for more time so that he could counter the arguments put to him by the civil servants who do not support a policy of complete nationalisation along the lines carried out by the Shah of Persia. In the fairly short time that I have been a Member of this place I have sometimes wondered whether it would not be better to change the civil servants and keep the Government. We might do better to get rid of the civil servants who have been advising successive Governments during the past 10 years and replace them with the Arabs who have been advising the Shah of Persia. The time for us to look again for wisdom towards the East is nigh.
I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement that Scotland will get more control of the oil development and especially the spin-off from North Sea oil development. I welcome that, and the people of Scotland will do likewise.
I am not so much concerned with the spin-off from oil development, exploration or exploitation but what we will do with it when the oil is landed, if it is ever landed, on the shores of Scotland. It has been said that we can expect in the next year only 5 million tons of oil from the North Sea: where will that oil be refined? At present it cannot be refined in Scotland because the only major refining capacity is the BP refinery at Grangemouth. BP has been carrying out a strange game for about three years. In the previous Parliament I tried to get from the Government some idea of when BP would carry out its plans to expand its refining capacity at Grangemouth. We are still waiting for a decision.
It is known that BP is building a pipeline from Aberdeenshire to Grangemouth. We know that facilities are being built to enable the oil to be taken from Scotland but we do not know whether BP will expand, as it has promised during the last three years, its refining capacity at Grangemouth. My opinion is that it has no intention of doing so. I hope that my right hon. Friend will put pressure on BP to increase its refining capacity.

Mr. Harry Ewing: In view of the concentration of my hon. Friend on my constituency and his quest for headlines at every turn, does he accept that he is not doing Grangemouth any good by making such statements about BP? Is he aware that BP has said that it is not a question of whether the expansion takes place but when it takes place? Those of us who are concerned with such matters in my constituency have a difficult enough job getting expansion on its way without my hon. Friend continually insulting those who have to make decisions. In so doing he is making our job just that bit more difficult.

Mr. Lambie: I only wish that my hon. Friend was on the Front Bench and not on the back benches. If that were so we might get some progress. Unfortunately,

he is not in a position to take a decision. I have listened to BP's story about promised development for the past three and a half years. We can wait only so long. The oil is not waiting, and next year 5 million tons of oil will reach Scottish shores. I am trying to help by putting pressure on BP. My hon. Friend knows as well as I that BP has no intention of increasing the refining capacity at Grangemouth. I am hopeful that the Government will put pressure on BP.
My main concern is where the oil will be refined. We are told that by 1980 there might be 100 million tons of oil to be refined. I have seen figures which suggest that we may have to deal with 150 million tons. By the early 1980s the annual production from North Sea sources could be approximately 300 million tons. Where will it be refined? It is all very well telling the Scottish people that there will be the spin-off from the offshore development, but the greatest spin-off must come from the refining process and the associated processes of the petrochemical industry.
I hope that tonight we shall a statement on the Government's intention to deal with Ayr County Council's plans to change the use of land at Hunterston from agricultural to industrial purposes and to deal with the applications from the Chevron Oil Company and from the Orsi Company to build oil refineries at Hunterston. If Scotland is to gain long-term benefit from the oil resources of the North Sea we must build up a petrochemical industry. To do so we must have the oil refineries.
It is strange that following the conclusion of this debate we shall deal with Private Members' Bills. One of these Bills deals with the building of a new refinery on the Thames. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, who deals with planning applications in England and Wales, has given planning permission in principle to increased refining capacity in the South-East of England, which already has too much of it. Yet my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland is still delaying a decision on applications to build oil refineries in the Hunterston area.
I hope that the Labour Party wins the next General Election in Scotland. We can do so by seeing that we nationalise North Sea oil and bring the financial benefits of it into the corpus of the people


of Scotland and of the United Kingdom. We must also develop the assets of the Clyde in order to build up the steel, oil-refining and petrochemical industries, based on the deep water at Hunterston. I repeat what I have said many times before, especially to the Scottish National Party. If we are to use the wealth of North Sea oil to benefit the people of Scotland, we have to nationalise it.

Mr. Fell: Everyone talks about North Sea oil only in terms of Scotland. North Sea oil is already being landed in Norfolk, where garages are selling it. Why should it be thought that North Sea oil is the preserve of Scotland and that Scotland should gain everything from it?

Mr. Lambie: Scottish Members have to be forgiven if they keep talking about North Sea oil in relation to Scotland, because when we are in London we hear so much about England and London that we show a natural reaction.
Where the Labour Party fundamentally differs from the Scottish National Party is in Labour's belief that if we are to receive the maximum financial benefit from North Sea oil we must nationalise it and take complete control of it. We shall never get the benefits to the people of Scotland by giving the international oil companies control of North Sea oil, as the Scottish National Party would do. The Arab countries have been oil rich for the last 50 years but they have also been among the poorest populations in the world. Oil and oil reserves do not automatically lead to riches and prosperity for a country.
My fear is that if we were to follow the policy of the Scottish National Party, and did not nationalise our North Sea oil, we should be in the same position as the Arab countries were 10 years ago—one of the richest countries in the world, with huge oil resources and a poor population. Yet that, in effect, is the policy of the Scottish National Party.

4.54 p.m.

Mr. J. Grimond: I add my congratulations, and those of my right hon. and hon. Friends, to the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. Fairgrieve). Having heard his admirable maiden speech, the House will realise even more than it did the remarkable qualities of my hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and

Peebles (Mr. Steel), who narrowly defeated him in 1970.
I intend to be extremely brief because it is not long since I made a speech about oil. It was, alas, before my passion for cleanliness left me as the rather curious spectacle that I present now, with my arm in a sling. But as the question of oil is of great importance to my constituency, I am sure that I shall be forgiven for speaking about it again.
I congratulate the Secretary of State for Energy on moving the Offshore Supplies Office to Scotland. Many of us think that the major control of energy and oil should be there. Whatever happens in Norfolk—and no doubt there is admirable North Sea oil there—the one part of the country which has little energy to give us is the South-East of England.

Mr. T. H. H. Skeet: What about natural gas?

Mr. Grimond: Natural gas is well spread over the whole of the United Kingdom as far as this place is concerned.
There is also the question of the American embargo on any but American ships servicing the oil rigs. When I raised this matter in the last Parliament, I was assured that it was under consideration, and I hope that action will be taken.
I should like to be assured that the Government are giving attention to a long-term strategy for energy. It is cleat that, however long they last, our oil and coal resources are dependent on vegetable matter which is expendable. One cannot predict too far ahead, but we should have some idea of what are likely to be the main uses for coal, natural gas, oil and, later, nuclear energy for some years ahead.
Undoubtedly, those parts of the world which will be most hard hit by the shortage and cost of energy are the underdeveloped countries, whose position will become desperate. It will surely be for the developed and better-off countries to curtail their own demands—which are ever increasing—in the interests of helping the underdeveloped parts of the world.
I shall not speak about the developments needed in Orkney and Shetland because I have spoken about them before and this is only a short debate. I am glad that the Minister of State is to visit


Orkney and Shetland soon, when he will see the situation for himself. There is great urgency in this matter. It has been raised time and again by the local authorities and by me and there is a great deal to be done. Today, the Zetland County Council Bill has at last passed through both Houses, and the Government might look at it as a possible model. It will, I hope, achieve something which we all want—a higher percentage of the revenues from oil retained for the people.
It does not do this by nationalisation but by what I would call an up-to-date version of the civic enterprise of Joseph Chamberlain, which should have great appeal to at least two parties in this House and might even be acceptable to the Labour Party. But the Bill will not go the whole way and a great deal needs to be done in the provision of infrastructure and in new developments, such as technical education as well as services.
What should the companies pay for the oil? I hope that we shall be enlightened about the development costs. Is it true that the companies can arrange matters so that our taxpayers pay for most of the deveopment? The amount of profit the companies have to retain must surely depend very much upon development and exploration costs. However, I think that we all agree that there must be some levy both for the local authorities, for Scotland and for the United Kingdom Treasury.
I mention Scotland not in any chauvinistic spirit but because for years we have been told that we are an impoverished area which must depend largely on subsidies from the South. Apart from anything else, it would be good for the development of enterprise in the North if we could feel that we were getting a share of the natural resources which lie not in our land but in the adjacent seas.
I do not suppose that the Government can state their pricing policy today but it is of crucial importance. "Nationalisation" is such a vague term that it is difficult to carry on a useful debate in the time we have. I have no objection to public authorities taking a share in some of the developments. But the State has had a large stake—I believe that it

is 50 per cent.—in BP for many years and it has had little effect on the development of BP. I think that we have to look at the whole structure of the Government for handling our energy problems. I am not in favour of putting the nationalised industries outside the control of this House. I hope that a Ministry of Energy will be a continuing part of our governmental structure and that it will have considerable control of developments.
Finally, a word or two about planning. There is widespread anxiety about the danger from rigs. As will be well known, several extremely serious accidents have already taken place. What would have happened had those rigs been in production? Are the Government satisfied that they could have controlled the appalling pollution that might have taken place?
I was surprised to hear the right hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Jenkin) say that it was now a matter of extreme urgency to make up our minds about Drumbuie. It is 18 months or two years since I urged the previous Government to reform the planning laws. I said that they ought to have a Ministry for Energy, that they ought to set up a high-level committee and carry out a survey of sites and that their present procedures were wholly inadequate to the situation they faced. This was all brushed aside for a year. Even now, when asked where he got the information upon which he justified his Government's representations for the Drumbuie inquiry, he says, "That comes from the highest sources." Where, in fact, do they come from? His own man, Mr. Bullock from the DTI, cross-examined by Mr. Donald Ross, said that
his department did not employ the same level of technical adviser as the construction companies. They relied on information from the construction companies and the oil companies, and on available literature.
It is not good enough that the Government should come to these inquiries almost briefed by the companies. This whole planning question is one of great difficulty. A great deal of local opinion is in favour of industry. People want jobs, they want earnings. But there are all the counter-questions of environment and of the future; of the community, of reparation and so forth.
My position is perfectly clear. We want more industry in the Highlands, but it must be controlled. I am convinced that the Government's planning procedures are not adequate. On the other hand, I am also convinced that simply to put through a Bill for compulsory purchase, largely at the behest of the interested companies, would be totally wrong. The public authorities must keep control and make sure that the public are consulted and, further, see that all this is done in public.
I am told that the mood in which the DTI presented its evidence at Drumbuie was very different from the mood in which it left it after cross-examination. I believe that the whole of those procedures must be examined in detail before we decide what ought to be done in the future.
The inquiries are too long, too expensive and too cumbrous. They were never designed for this purpose. There have got to be planning procedures and there are very important points about who should control the land. Should it be the local authorities? Should it be the Government? We must be assured of two things: first, that the Government stand for the public interest and do not depend for their briefs upon the interested parties; and secondly, if greater control is to be taken by the Government, it must remain in Sootland. The new Bill was to have been a United Kingdom Bill, but the only sites are in Scotland.
I hope those two points will be borne in mind and I trust that the Government will be able soon to produce a shortened planning procedure and to assure us that those who have to object can be compensated from public funds. I do not at present blame the Government for the position, because the last Government left it for two years before doing anything about planning.

5.3 p.m.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Knowing what the time situation is in a three-hour debate, I shall confine myself to three points. First, I congratulate my right hon. and hon. Friends on their decision to make Glasgow the centre of operations. We asked for this, the promise has now been delivered, and I thank them.
My second point is directed more in the direction of the right hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Jenkin). I thought that it was a tremendous give-away that he talked in terms of senior and junior partners. He asked—and he will correct me if I have got it wrong—"Did the Labour Government think it right that the oil companies should be the junior partners?"
I harp back to that because the reverse of the coin is that the decisions should be made by the companies and not by the State, or whoever represents the public at any given time, or any given Government. Having sat through four Finance Bills with the right hon. Gentleman, I shall willingly give way to him if I have got him wrong, and apologise if I have.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: The hon. Gentleman is seizing on a phrase that I used. I am sure he will recognise that the question of majority or minority control is separate from any question of the slow of revenue to the Exchequer, which can be dealt with by taxation, or any question of the actual control over the rates of production, or the destination of oil, which can be dealt with by the terms on which the licences are issued. I referred solely to the question of participation.

Mr. Dalyell: That has been cleared up, at any rate partially, and there is no justification for taking up the time of the House by going further into that argument.
Thirdly, I echo much of the argument of the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond). It is not good enough that the Government should depend on highly interested advice when decisions have to be made about Drumbuie. I shall not go over all the evidence that has been adduced by the National Trust and representatives of the Department of Trade and Industry at the inquiry.
The central issue is where the advice comes from, and the question I should like answered it: what evidence is there that the Condeep design, which is probably moderately good, is the only design to fit the circumstances?
We should like an expert opinion from the Government as to what alternatives there are. When we have the Government's assessment of the alternatives for


getting the oil out of the North Sea, and the Celtic sea, a judgment can be made on rational grounds whether we should go ahead with Drumbuie. I hope that during the wind-up speech that crucial evidence will be forthcoming.

5.6 p.m.

Mr. Alexander Fletcher: I join in the congratulations extended to my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. Fairgrieve) on his maiden speech which was full of imaginative ideas not only on the question of North Sea oil but on the rôle that his constituency plays in this important matter.
I, too, propose to refer to the importance of North Sea oil to Scotland which, incidentally, is a better place to live in today than it has ever been. That is proved by the number of people returning to live in Scotland and by those who are coming to live there for the first time
There are several reason for that turn of events. The first is the strength of the British economy during the past few years, which has again been endangered by last week's Budget. Nevertheless, the Finance Bill has yet to get through the House and, hopefully, something drastic will happen to it on the way, because the strength of the Scottish economy depends, as ever, on the strength of the British economy as it affects nine out of ten jobs in Scotland.
On the question of the economy generally, and offshore oil in particular, one of the key factors in the continuing success of these developments is the political stability of Britain as a single political and economic unit. Offshore oil is one of the keys to the future prosperity of Scotland and the whole of the United Kingdom, and it is tremendously important. Thus, all proposals made by the Government this afternoon have to be considered extremely carefully.
There is one proposal on which I should like to congratulate the Government, and that is the proposed strengthening of the Offshore Supplies Office and the removal of the headquarters of that department to Glasgow. This will be welcomed with great interest in Scotland. I urge the Government to move the whole of the Department of Energy to Edinburgh,

where it would be ideally located to deal with Britain's requirements regarding North Sea oil.
The Secretary of State did not give us any hope regarding the present planning procedure—to which the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) referred—when he outlined the Government's plans and proposals. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wan-stead and Woodford (Mr. Jenkin) made particular reference to Loch Can-on and Drumbuie, and I shall refer to the planning procedures in general, as I believe them to be of tremendous importance to the development of North Sea oil.
The problem is that developers cannot programme their operations to meet the requirements of the oil companies as long as the present planning procedures remain. They are too time consuming, and even the best public inquiries have great difficulty in grappling with the physical, economic and environmental requirements of a proposed development. The result is that oil companies and their contractors are in a dilemma. They do not know the Government's intentions. If that is serious for the development and for the developers involved in North Sea oil, it is much worse for objectors. The present procedures are a nightmare for those who object to planning proposals. People are left entirely in the dark about the Government's proposals.
Public inquiries are an exercise only for the affluent. On a major development, the cost to objectors may be £20,000 or £30,000. That has to be met entirely from private subscription. It is deplorable that the Government have made no proposals to ease this burden. This is a peculiar exercise in egalitarianism on the part of the Labour Party. It stifles at birth public participation in these proposals, and it stifles them for the worst possible reasons. It is aburd that the Government should not reveal their intentions during the course of a public inquiry.
In relation to the existing planning procedures in Scotland, I understand that the Secretary of State is the protector of the public interest. Therefore, I am not suggesting that he has to reveal his hand before the reporter has made his report to him and the recommendations are known. However, I suggest that the


sponsoring Department—whether it be the Departments of Trade or Industry or the Department of Energy—should state its views clearly and openly right from the start, so that developers and objectors may be able to assess the full ramifications of a proposed development.
I hope that the Minister will undertake to offer some hope to those who are deeply involved and concerned in this matter. If the Government fail to react to the need to simplify and sharpen the planning procedures, offshore oil will remain neither Scottish nor Welsh, nor British but will be the property of King Neptune, and there is no advantage to anyone in that state of affairs.

5.13 p.m.

Mr. Ronald Atkins: I, too, should like to add my congratulations to the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West, (Mr. Fairgrieve). He evidently loves Scotland, as I do. Scotland is my favourite resort, and I say that as an Englishman born in Wales. I love all three countries and the people of all three countries. It saddens me to see enmity between hon. Members when they should be united in the love of the United Kingdom.

Mrs. Winifred Ewing: There is no enmity.

Mr. Atkins: It seem like it sometimes. Of all the places I love in Scotland, Drumbuie, or the area round it, comes first. For that reason, I have some sympathy with the remarks made about Drumbuie by the right hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Jenkin).
However, I have no sympathy whatever with his remarks on the public ownership of national resources.
I beg the Conservative Opposition to give up their doctrinaire attitude. They are out of line with Tory parties in Europe and elsewhere. Those Conservative parties, when the national interest is at stake, are prepared to accept public ownership.
In fact, the present Conservative Party is not what it used to be. In the past, it was much less doctrinaire. I believe that it was a Conservative administration which took a majority shareholding in the oil company that later became BP. That happened at a time when public

ownership of an oil company was unique. I do not think public ownership existed outside this country, but the Conservative administration then realised that such a move was in the public interest. If that were so then, it surely is today. We should not see the profits from North Sea oil and gas being whittled away, going to foreigners rather than Britishers.

Mr. Fell: Cannot the hon. Gentleman control himself on this matter and hold himself back, at least until the companies have got the oil ashore? Then perhaps he can talk of nationalisation.

Mr. Atkins: Can the hon. Member for Yarmouth (Mr. Fell) hold himself until I have finished my speech?
We heard frequent Opposition arguments—I heard them from 1966 to 1970—to the effect that we were not sufficiently generous to the oil companies. When they regained office in 1970 the Conservatives proceeded to be generous. But oil companies were never deterred, despite the fears expressed. Moreover, nearly all expert opinion today tends to believe we were much too generous.
I know that the Opposition claim to be the patriotic party and they use the Union Jack—shall I say that they sully it?—as a party emblem at their political meetings. But what kind of patriotism is it that makes compatriots of big business men in America and foreigners of poor Britons? The Conservatives are totally inconsistent in that matter. We have often seen Brtain being robbed of revenue and wealth which is hers by right. Countries from Norway to America and to the Middle East are getting much fairer rewards. We are the least regardful of British interests.
I beg the Opposition to adopt a more sensible attitude and to attune themselves to the nation's wishes. The British nation wants to share in these rich national resources.
I am very fond of Drumbuie—it is my favourite resort—Kyle of Lochalsh, and the whole of that area. Every year I go to Inverness-shire and stay either in that delightful nationalised hotel—the Station Hotel—or in a hotel in Dingwall. Every day when I am in that area I take the train between those places and Kyle of Lochalsh. I do not, as do other hon. Members, pollute the atmosphere and disturb the peace of the countryside by


going by car. I now know the inhabitants of the area extremely well. The only unpleasant village in that area—I know it well—is Drumbuie, because of the corrugated roofs of the cottages and the general higgledy-piggledy mess of the place. But I have grown to know and love the people well. It has disturbed me that in recent years there are more and more foreigners moving into second homes and beginning to regard the place merely as a holiday place, and nothing else.
I was gravely distressed when, two or three years ago, I heard that the line between Inverness and Kyle of Lochalsh was to be closed. I regard that line as a lifeline for the Highlands. I took steps to fight this closure through an organisation to which I belong, but to no avail. I realised what the closure would do to the area, particularly as there was considerable unemployment in the area as well. The fact that the ferry was no longer coming from Hebrides to Kyle of Lochalsh and that the line was to close meant that there would he still more hardship. More young people—more natives, if one prefers—would be pushed out in favour of people who want to use the area for their own pleasure for only a couple of months of the year.
I was terribly distressed. But when I heard that there was a chance of this railway line being saved through a minor industrial development in the Drumbuie area I was happy. I knew that I would cease to go to this area if the railway line were closed. On the other hand, I knew that if the essential industry were established in the area it would save not only the countryside but the community, and that is what we should be concerned about. Many people shed crocodile tears about people leaving the Highlands. It is no good doing that without providing work, communications, and other amenities, to keep them there.
The development at Drumbuie will be there for about 15 years. When the company leaves, any Government who have the interest of the country at heart will ensure that the place is left rather better than it was before.
I have not relied on the information from construction companies on people's feelings about this development. I have been to Kyle of Lochalsh myself and

asked people in the street and some of the tradesmen. Sentimental stories have been told about the crofters of Drumbuie, but most of them are not crofters in the true sense of the word. They are industrial workers who happen to live in these cottages and who work in Kyle of Lochalsh when there is work for them. Some of them are, naturally, holding out because they hope to get better compensation. I do not blame them, because the contractors can afford it.
The opinion in Kyle of Lochalsh and Drumbuie itself it not against this. Much of the opposition comes from second home owners, some of whom are Lowlanders. Therefore, this situation should be considered from the point of view of the community and not from any environmental sentimentality. I am not environmentalist, which is one reason why I believe in railway transport. But I am certain that the community should be maintained in this area, and I believe that this is one of the projects that will help to do so.
Any Government could insist, if they took the powers, that this development was entirely in line with good planning requirements. I beg my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland to bear this in mind.

Mr. Dalyell: Some of us are very sympathetic to my hon. Friend's general argument. Does he also understand that the mind boggles, for those of us who have been at Nigg frequently, and see the lack of infrastructure there, at what the cost of the infrastructure would be in housing, schools, and so on, at Drumbuie?

Mr. Atkins: I agree that the development is bad there, but it is for us to prevent that. It is not a development on the same scale or for so long a period.
As the right hon. Gentleman said, this is a unique site. There are few sites anywhere in Scotland that have the deep water alongside a railway. The railway runs right along the coast at Drumbuie—it must be the nearest railway in the world to considerably deep water. What is to prevent us from insisting, if we give planning permission, that all transport be by this railway and not by the Highland roads?
There are many developments elsewhere in Scotland—and let us remember that


other people like attractive scenery and unpolluted atmosphere, too. Why shove a development somewhere else if it is undesirable? But I think that the undesirability of this site has been exaggerated. What is to prevent our insisting on good planning and everything being carried by rail? There are few other places in Scotland—certainly no other places with deep basins near the land—that will make it possible for all the traffic to be carried by rail.

Mr. Hamish Gray: The hon. Member is referring to my constituency, and I am sure that he will not mind my interrupting. I hope that he is not pre-empting the public inquiry now taking place, because as it goes on, there is no doubt that more and more sites are being described as suitable. Even in the Loch Carron area itself, whereas in the first instance we were led to believe that Drumbuie was the only possible site, several other sites are becoming increasingly popular. Indeed, as the inquiry goes on, some of those who originally did not think that they were suitable sites are coming around to the idea that they might be.

Mr. Atkins: I am coming to that in my summing up, which is very close now.
Despite the objectors' saying that there are lots of other sites—and I should like to point out that my subject is geography—I do not agree with them. I think that they are somewhat prejudiced—quite as prejudiced as any of the contractors are. I think that one of the places the hon. Member mentions is Kishorn. He will notice that there the contractors have offered to provide an ocean liner as the accommodation for their workers so as not to interfere with the scenery. We could make similar requirements.
One of the most serious problems in the country today—and it will be for many years—is our balance of payments. It is a question of saving a good deal of foreign currency by doing work in Scotland that would otherwise be done in Norway, and I beg the House to give this scheme sympathetic treatment.

5.29 p.m.

Mr. Iain Sproat: We have a very short time to discuss this extremely complex matter. I hope, there-

fore, that the hon. Member for Preston, North (Mr. Atkins) will forgive me if I do not take up the interesting and sympathetic arguments which he advanced. Perhaps I could say, as background to anything else that I say in a moment or two, that I believe it to be vital, whatever party is in power over the next decade, that that party give to the oil and oil-related industries a feeling of confidence, of knowing exactly where they stand—they may not like where they stand, but at least they must know—and a certain continuity of policies. I hope, therefore, that it may be possible to narrow the gap between the two Front Benches.
I have no time to go in great detail into the various policies involved in the new Government's package of oil policies, but I hope that at least they will contain among them the following. First, to turn to a non-controversial matter which was mentioned in the excellent and thoughtful maiden speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. Fairgrieve), there is the whole question of the infrastructure. He rightly emphasised how important this is. As the Secretary of State for Scotland quite properly and generously said the other day, his predecessor did a great deal to improve the infrastructure in terms of roads, harbours—at Aberdeen and Peterhead—and Dyce airport, and so on. Much was done, but there is an undoubted need for an increasing commitment to improvement in the infrastructure of the North-East and the Highlands.
Second, coming from Aberdeen, I must mention another non-controversial subject, fishing. I hope that the Government will bear in mind that there is still considerable concern and suspicion in the fishing industry about how it will be affected by the new developments in the North Sea. This results partly from lack of knowledge of what is going on. It is extremely difficult for the industry to find out, but, even when it does know, it is still worried.
The hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. Henderson) gave me a commitment yesterday that he would have regular meetings with the fishing industry. I hope that the industry will keep him to that commitment, to ensure that its concern and suspicion are removed as far as possible.
A more controversial matter is the Government's financial relationship with the oil companies. We should act upon the principle that there must be the maximum return for the community which does not provide a financial disincentive to the fastest possible development of our oil resources. I believe—I have yet to be convinced otherwise—that the best way to implement that principle is by gathering revenue through a combination of, first, corporation tax or equivalent company tax, the loopholes having been closed as my right hon. Friend the previous Chancellor of the Exchequer indicated, second, a royalty on the wellhead price, third, a barrelage tax, and fourth, licence fees.
I confess that, with hindsight, I wish that I, and, no doubt, others of my right hon. and hon. Friends, had pressed the Conservative Government to spell out exactly what that was likely to mean. They gave the people general assurances. I wish that it had been possible—though I understand that at the time it was difficult—to spell out exactly how the people of Scotland and the people of the United Kingdom would benefit from the revenue that, indubitably, will be gathered through these or other methods.
There are other options. The hon. Member for Ayrshire, Central (Mr. Lambie), perhaps inevitably, mentioned nationalisation. I hope that the Government will reject that totally. Whatever else may be true of the oil industry, it would ruin the prospects of Scotland's development. I hope that the Government will reject totally the sort of nationalisation which he advocated.
The second option is a national hydrocarbons corporation. I should not be an implacable opponent of a corporation formed in certain ways. We have yet to hear from the Government exactly what they have in mind. I should not necessarily oppose, for instance, some sort of interest taken by a corporation of this sort. I cannot help feeling that one of the attractions for hon. Members opposite of a national hydrocarbons corporation is that it is a sort of half-way house between the nationalisation being urged upon them by the Left wing of their own party and by hon. Members such as the hon. Member for Ayrshire, Central, and the more commonsense approach displayed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wan-

stead and Woodford (Mr. Jenkin). If it is just a half-way house, it is a very bad reason, but it is the sort of attraction which they feel lets them off the hook. It is half way towards nationalisation, and therefore half way towards pacifying their Left wing. I hope that that will be the least of reasons.

Mr. Skeet: What is the point in having another State agency when already State agencies—the National Coal Board and the British Gas Corporation—are conducting operations in the North Sea?

Mr. Sproat: I am coming to that. I am merely trying to be open-minded. I do not say that I should necessarily be obliged to oppose any form of national hydrocarbons corporation. There are arguments for it, and we have yet to hear from the Government what precise form they propose for such a corporation.
The hon. Member for Dudley, West (Dr. Phipps), in an interesting speech the other day, put forward a number of reasons why he was in favour of such a corporation. He said that it would consist of a body of men who had practical expertise, that it would have some sort of control over the companies involved and that it would guarantee proper British participation.
All those are virtues, but they are not virtues that would arise only from a national hydrocarbons corporation. They could as easily come from the Department of Energy. Indeed, I should be surprised if the Department of Energy did not already feel that it had a body of men with considerable expertise in this matter. We may feel there are not enough such men, and that as technology develops there will need to be more. None the less, I should have thought that the Department of Energy would feel that way.

Dr. Colin Phipps: rose—

Mr. Sproat: I must get on. We have less than an hour before the Front Benches wind up the debate.
I now turn to the question of benefits for Scotland. Benefits there must be, benefits there already are, and more benefits there will be, but benefits for Scotland do not mean some sort of special levy which goes into a special Scottish bank and can be solely used to


benefit Scotland, any more than we can have a special levy on the car industry of Birmingham for the benefit of the people of Birmingham, or a levy on the gas off the East Anglian Coast for the benefit of the people of East Anglia. Any such recommendation would be inconsistent with the social and economic unity of the United Kingdom.
But there must and will be special benefits for Scotland through other means. We already have 6,000 new jobs directly as a result of oil, and another 9,500 jobs for projects already planned. That does not include spin-off or the increasing momentum of the oil discoveries. There have been huge increases in wage packets. That brings considerable problems for industries outside the oil industry, but, none the less, the standard of living has already gone up considerably. It is estimated that £300 million will be spent annually on servicing, and that a large proportion of that will be spent in Scotland.
I have already mentioned improvements in the infrastructure—roads, harbours, new office blocks, new housing—but housing is the greatest single problem at present as a result of the oil development in the North-East. We already know that for every £100 the Treasury spends in total identifiable public expenditure in England, £120 is spent in Scotland. With more revenue coming into the United Kingdom Treasury, Scotland will benefit more because she will get more out. It is too often forgotten by the people of Scotland that they benefit in this way.
It is most important that Scotland should have the chance to participate fully in the downstream development of oil and petrochemical complexes which have already been mentioned. It is a chance to learn the operational expertise on the spot, so that when new oilfields are discovered elsewhere in the world it will be to those who have learned their techniques in Scotland that people will turn. It must be of benefit to any shrewd businessman or industrialist to be closest to the place where the action is. My own constituents in Aberdeen have benefited in that way.
There will be new departments at universities and new Government Departments.
I welcome unreservedly what was said this afternoon about moving the

Offshore Supplies Office to Glasgow. I hope that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) will also consider carefully, as he has promised, my suggestion that a major part of his Department—not the whole of his Department as suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North (Mr. Fletcher); that would be absurd—could be moved with sense to Aberdeen so that there would be a direct interface between a Government Department and the men taking the operational decisions on the spot.
The Secretary of State has promised that he will make an announcement about changes in the future, and I hope that that is one of the changes.

The Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Gavin Strang): I think the hon. Gentleman is going a little further than any Government commitment. I am sure he would acknowledge that the promise of an announcement by the Secretary of State is a tremendous advance in the context of Scotland.

Mr. Sproat: Yes. I said that when the Under-Secretary was whispering to the right hon. Gentleman. I welcome that unreservedly and feel that it is a big step forward for Scotland.
Much has already been said on planning procedures. The Minister mentioned the other day the difficulties of balancing the two sides, and I accept that. But I hope that it will be possible to substitute a positive planning procedure for what is basically a negative planning procedure in Scotland. There should be places in Scotland where companies which wish to carry out certain projects know they will get permission. I should like to see rather more positive planning procedures adopted.
On the question of conservation, if I had to choose I would be on the side of those who believe in speedier development. I know that speedy development of oil must be balanced by proper concern for conservation of the landscape. By and large, it is vital for this country that we obtain the oil as fast as possible, but surely it is possible in the new package of oil policies, which the Government are to put forward to find a means whereby it is imperative that companies should restore the landscape. I know that there are powers to enable this to


be done, but let us make it explicit and let the Government set up a fund for restoration where companies have failed in their commitments or perhaps make insurance compulsory to make sure that the landscape, by whatever means, is restored after the oil boom is over.

5.42 p.m.

Dr. Colin Phipps: The House will recall that I have an interest in these matters. There are two points which I should like to develop—me the pace of development, and the other the British involvement in the service and supply industries.
I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will not be misled by much of the Opposition's rhetoric, particularly during the election, about the necessity for rapid development of North Sea oil. The Opposition found themselves in the position of the bankrupt who saw the possibility of a pools win around the corner if they could hang on long enough.
The country is in a difficult economic position which will not be affected by the fortuitous gambling winnings of finding oil in the North Sea. We must get our economy right independent of the North Sea bonanza round the corner. The North Sea bonanza is the icing on the cake; it should be the bonus for our society, not the means for getting us out of an economic scrape. In looking at the pace of the development in the North Sea, we must take into consideration the social and environmental factors.
I have worked for a number of years in many countries in oil fields and in the areas in which the supply industries for oil fields have been developed. Oil fields have been characterised by the companies themselves developing what are known as oil camps. The oil camp is the company essentially creating its own infrastructure. It builds houses for its workers; it builds schools, hospitals and everything else required to support the oil field or the constructional process.
However, when these processes are no longer required the houses and the infrastructure remain, but employment does not. I am thinking particularly of Venezuela where I spent six years. I can think of seven oil camps round Lake Maracaibo which today are derelict.

They were complete in that they were living communities with schools and everything else that a community needs. It would be a disaster if oil camps—which we should be paying for them rather than the companies—spring up in some of the most beautiful country in Great Britain only for them to become derelict within 20 or 25 years. In the case of things such as platform building, it is highly likely that they will be derelict prior to that time.
In pursuing a rapid development of the North Sea, I should like to see the Government producing work particularly in those areas where work is most needed. There seems to be no reason why we cannot look to those areas in Scotland, in particular, and later possibly in Wales and other parts of Great Britain, where there already exists an infrastructure and where there is already a requirement for work. I am not suggesting that it will be easier to produce things on the Clyde and to ship them around the North, but it may be very intelligent for us in the long term to do so. However, I hope that we take our time in coming to the proper decision about where these developments should take place.
In touching on the second point, which is the question of British participation, particularly in the service and supply industries, I very much welcome the expansion of the Offshore Supplies Office and its setting up in Glasgow. British participation is pitifully small. The reasons for this are fairly easy to understand. It is something which I have characterised previously as the Norwegian jumbo-jet syndrome. If the Norwegians were to build a jumbo-jet, they would find a great deal of consumer reluctance among the airline companies which fly aircraft around the world. However, if the Boeing Company of Seattle were to have a factory in Norway and build jumbo-jets there, it would find immediate acceptance of the aircraft.
This is very much the case with this industry. It is the experts in the industry who are supplying the drilling barges and equipment which find acceptance, and they find that acceptance because they have been doing it for years. It is a very expensive, highly complex and expert business. I speak as a man involved in advising companies. I find myself having to advise them to use one


of the international drilling companies in preference to a company set up in the last couple of years, for instance, in Britain.
What this means is that if British industry is to get its proper and full share of the service and supply industries, it must do it initially in partnership with the international service companies. We must form partnerships with the international service companies so that they will help British companies to learn the business and to participate with them in the North Sea.
But there is no way in which we can coerce major American or international companies into doing this. The oil companies will use them by preference, anyway. But there is no reason why the Department, particularly through the medium of a national hydrocarbons corporation, could not say quite definitely to the oil companies that our licensing policy will be to give licences to those oil companies which promote the association of British industry with the international oil industry.
I assure hon. Members that, despite the deterrent effect of which we have heard so much from the Conservative Party, most of the oil companies are enthusiastic about the remainder of the North Sea and other British waters currently unlicensed. They will be only too delighted to put pressure on American and other service companies to take British partners in tow. Our offshore oil industry will be very large and will last for many years; but the offshore oil industry world-wide is a huge business and will last for a very long time. The only way in which we shall have British participation not only here but internationally is by devising a policy here and now which will ensure that this expertise is developed in Britain.

5.52 p.m.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: I commence by congratulating the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. Fairgrieve) on his maiden speech, which was stylish and well-argued. It is significant that he chose to make his maiden speech on a subject which is of great consequence to Scotland, namely, our offshore oil resources.
The question of oil is one of those motivating forces which is substantial in its implications for the United Kingdom

as well as for Scotland. There is considerable dissatisfaction in Scotland at present about the way in which the offshore oil industry has been managed. It is also clear that the news which was announced by Burmah of the extension of the Ninian field has led to an increase in value of Burmah and ICI shares—those being the two companies involved in the announcement. The companies' shareholders have started to benefit. But once the oil begins to flow the profits of offshore oil generally by 1980 will vary between £3,000 million and £4,000 million, depending on which estimate one accepts and upon the value of each barrel of oil at that time.
There is no doubt that, subsequently the British Government will benefit from taxation, whatever taxation policies are ultimately adopted. Indeed, in last week's Budget debate the Chancellor of the Exchequer seemed to be anchoring many of his main hopes for the future on the existence of the oil off the Scottish coast. But in this matter we cannot give just passing mention to Scotland because the Scottish people will not now tolerate that sort of treatment. There has been hardly a word about how Scotland is to benefit from the revenues. Some vague formulae were mentioned in the Gracious Speech. I appreciate that in the Gracious Speech it is not possible to define matters in great detail, but it is disappointing that nothing specific has been mentioned.
It seems to me to be almost impudent for the Conservative Party to have raised this debate at all, because during their period of office they presided over the disintegration of any coherent oil policy in relation to oil off the Scottish coast. They had no policies. I was not a Member of the House at the time, but for my sins I read HANSARD and the statements which were being made by Government spokesmen of the Department of Trade and Industry, sometimes as many as four Ministers, on subjects relating to oil—and a confusing picture it was.
I am sure that the Scottish National Party will welcome the Government's intention to strengthen the Offshore Supplies Office and to move its principal base to Scotland. Any move of that sort will have our support; but I do not suggest that it is a major advance for Scotland. It is a minor advance.
There are still other decisions of greater importance which the Department of Energy or the Secretary of State for Scotland have to take. There is the question of the location of the Department of Energy itself. I have mentioned this matter in an earlier speech in relation to the Hardman Report. Is it not desirable that a major Government Department should be set up in Scotland? If so, what better than the Department of Energy, perhaps excluding the parliamentary section? If the Secretary of State for Scotland can function while having a parliamentary section in Whitehall and the majority of his civil servants in Edinburgh, why should not the Secretary of State for Energy be placed in a similar situation? Although the transfer of the Offshore Supplies Office meets with approval, it is not enough. That will be the attitude of the people of Scotland.
I am not entirely impressed by the fact that the Government are not prepared to state at this stage what their policies will be. Since Labour were in opposition for three years, surely it would have been possible in that period to have worked out their policies. Although I understand that there may be a dispute between the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Lambie) over nationalisation—a dispute which he has more with his governmental colleagues than with the Scottish National Party—it is clear that in the course of the election the Government changed their attitude, or defined it, to a policy more in line with what is happening in Norway.
One hopes that this may have stemmed from Lord Balogh, who for some years has been suggesting that Norwegian procedures should be followed in this country. Indeed on 22nd November in the House of Lords the noble Lord dealt with the Conservative Government's policies. In that debate Lord Balogh mentioned the "suckers" in Britain and Scotland, by which he meant the British and the Scottish people and the way in which their interests had not been looked after by the Conservative Government.
The Scottish Nationalist Party welcome the Government's policies on social justice, but there is a most interesting announcement today in the Financial Times about what the Norwegian Government are proposing to do before the main

flood of revenue comes into the Norwegian Exchequer. The Norwegians have negotiated a loan of £150 million. That may not seem very much in the rarefied altitudes of this House, but when related to the size of Norway in population terms it is a very substantial loan indeed. They are using it to help to finance a decrease in social security contributions, an addition equivalent to 1 per cent. of wages. There will also be a 2 per cent. tax cut and increases in pensions and child allowances and it is hoped that there will also be a 3 per cent. to 4 per cent. increase in real incomes in Norway in the coming year. The announcement has been welcomed by the trade union organisation and also by spokesman for the employers' association in Norway.
We in Scotland are determined not to lose out through the discovery of oil off the Scottish coast. I should like to quote from "Roustabout", a magazine published in Aberdeen after the General Election. I must emphasise that it is not a publication that particularly favours the attitude of my party. The magazine says:
Scotland's Oil…? We don't see it that way… But the big message from the General Election is loud and clear. Let either major party ignore the aspirations of the Scottish people in the development of North Sea oil at their peril!
The magazine goes on to stipulate:
What we want to hear now is something about the roads, the airports, the massive infrastructure needed for us to take full advantage of oil developments. Let us hear no more about delays in planning procedures…about Scotland having to wait until London makes up its mind…Let's now start treating North Sea oil seriously.
I emphasise that quotation is from a source not sympathetic to the basic attitudes of the SNP, but it recognises the strong feeling held throughout Scotland that we must play a much more important rôle in the development of the national resources off our coast.
I had intended to give some gentle, but chiding, advice to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) who is now Under-Secretary of State for Energy. I welcomed the hon. Gentleman's appointment, and I hope that he will fulfil the functions of his office to ensure that the benefits of the oil discoveries are reflected in the Scottish economy, but I am afraid, having read


some of his recent speeches, that I detected creeping into them a note that was more on the lines of the speeches of Lord Polwarth who dealt with these subjects in the House of Lords on behalf of the then administration. I would ask the hon. Gentleman to change his script writer or the civil servant who has been helping him and to strike out in his own inimitable fashion to make sure that Scotland's interests are protected.
It is evident that anybody in this Parliament who thinks of playing the London game is in danger of alienating the support of the Scottish people. This is a message which has been taken to heart not only by the remnants of the Scottish Conservative Party but also by Members of the Labour Government. The Scottish people is sensitive on this subject and will not allow Scotland's interests to be ignored as has happened before.
When Scotland has 89,658 people out of work—that is, 4·2 per cent. of her insured population unemployed compared with a figure of 1 per cent. in Norway—no Scot of whatever political complexion can stand by and see one of the most important natural resources ever discovered in our country looted indiscriminately without benefit to Scotland.

6.2 p.m.

Mrs. Maureen Colquhoun: I hope I may be forgiven for saying that, as a new Member of the British House of Commons, I feel a little insecure. In listening to this debate, I wondered whether I had not by chance strayed into a Scottish assembly. But my credentials for speaking are an Irish mother, a Welsh father, a Scottish husband and the fact that I was born in England. If anybody can do any better than that, I suggest that they join the Liberals.
One of the exciting things about British oil is that for the first time in our history as a nation we have a chance to look at a new mineral resource and decide what is the best use we can make of it for the good of the nation as a whole. This has never happened before. Britain has been fortunate over the centuries in its mineral discoveries, although in each case the sole consideration has been that of private profit. At various times in our history

minerals such as tin, salt, lead and iron have had their day and have been rejected because they have no longer been considered profitable. For more than 2,000 years what was considered to be good for private business was considered to be good for the British people as a whole. Today we know that that is not the case. With oil we have a chance to make a fresh start—or have we? This is the question that causes me considerable dismay.
Is it already too late to deal with this immeasurably large asset in a Socialist way? Are we already prisoners of decisions taken, of contracts signed, of handshakes given, of banquets exchanged, of undertakings in public and of secret deals in private? How can we temper the amount already promised to business? Is the gravy train already loaded and on its way? The best we can do is to slow it down.
Will our successors on these benches in 50 years' time find themselves in the same position as Members of the Labour Party did in the post-war years when they had to consider the future of the coal industry? They found that they had been given the job of clearing up the damage created by greedy private industry whose main concern in the past had been to grab all they could, with no consideration for the needs of tomorrow.
British oil is held out to be the treasure of treasures and the bonanza which will enable us to live happily ever after. There is a terrible danger in this because, even if it is true, it will distort our judgment. We have, on the one hand, business driven on by the lure of unlimited wealth. On the other hand, we have the Government driven on by the prospect of unlimited cash for building social services, for building perhaps the largest hospitals in the world, for raising the school leaving age to 45, and for replacing the three-wheeler invalid cars by Silver Ghosts.
That is not the climate in which we can make the right decisions about the oil that we are discussing today. I would prefer it to be left under the sea for another 20 years than to be dealt with in a blind and stupid way.
What shall we do with the oil when we get it ashore? It would be wicked to burn it in power stations or in cars. The wisest statement that I have heard


recently came from an Arab who said that oil was too noble a substance to burn. Shall we use it in a more creative form as a plastic or a s the basis of a new foodstuff? To burn it would be surely as short-sighted as it was to burn our trees for fuel, as we once did. They are so much more valuable as furniture or paper.
Even today, we still have not been told the whole truth about oil. I suspect that there is even more oil, on a scale at which we can only guess. I believe that the last General Election was really about whether the great power implicit in these enormous deposits of wealth was to be handled in a Tory way or a Socialist way.
The Labour Party won the election. Let us use that power properly. It is quite right for this Government to take some time to consider how best that can be done.

6.8 p.m.

Mr. T. H. H. Skeet: The hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mrs. Colquhoun) has made a very interesting speech. Apparently she has been talking to the Shah of Persia, who has disclosed the fact that oil must be used very carefully since it may become more valuable in the ground after 20 years. However, if we come to the conclusion that energy can be derived from sea water, oil may no longer be used for fuel but for other requirements.
I turn immediately to the speech of the Secretary of State for Energy. He suggested that the profits which may accrue to the country are £3,000 million, on which the tax impost is £1,500 million.
The Secretary of State and I agree about one matter, and it is that the State should have an equitable allocation. However, I do not agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the State should be totally greedy and not allow anything to those who are producing the oil.
I have been amazed to hear all the suggestions which have been put forward in the debate so far because no one has pursued the possibility that I have raised in a Question to the Minister about a posted price for North Sea oil. I have been told simply that the Government are considering the proposal. If the Government were to adopt my suggestion, there would be no need to set up an assembly of State agencies, including a British hydro-

carbons corporation and a number of regional bodies which would busy themselves and employ a large number of bureaucrats.
Let me refer to a paragraph which appeared in The Petroleum Economist of April 1974:
On these assumptions, the government would receive $2 a barrel royalty plus $6·50 a barrel by way of tax, making $8·50 a barrel in all, while the tax-paid cost to the company would be $9·50. The government's income would compare with a present host-government take of $7 a barrel on Arabian light crude. It would be equivalent to roughly £26·50 a ton. On an output of 2 million barrels a day, or 100 million tons a year, it would bring in a total revenue of £2,650 million a year—or almost £4,000 million if production rose to the 3 million barrels a day level which is widely anticipated.
What is all this talk about setting up a host of Government agencies? We are, after all, talking about tax available to the economy which can be utilised for further investment in industry, for the social services or for any other requirement of the Government.
We have also heard a great deal about carried interest. One hon. Member implied that we should pursue the ideas which have been adopted in Norway. However, the two countries are not comparable. In Norway, half the energy requirement comes from hydro-electricity. In the United Kingdom, that as a source of energy is much smaller. The Norwegians have decided to decelerate the extraction of oil from the North Sea to the extent that they are closing down for further exploration below the 62nd parallel.
I have made it clear earlier that before the Government start to quarrel with the National Coal Board and the British Gas Council, which are already in the North Sea, and before they quarrel with British Petroleum in which they have a 48 per cent. interest, they might consider some of these agencies be used for their purposes.
In the Dumlin extension with Conoco and Gulf, the National Coal Board has a 33·3 per cent. interest. In the Hutton field, the board has a similar interest. In the Hutton extension, the British Gas Corporation has a 25·7 per cent. interest. In the Montrose field, the Gas Corporation has a 30·77 per cent. interest. In the Beryl field, it has a 10 per cent. interest. The Forties field is 100 per cent. BP.


In the Ninian field BP has a 50 per cent. interest with Ranger Oil having the balance. To bring in a new body with no expertise and to set it up as a internationally integrated organisation does not make sense.
The previous administration intended to bring forward a Bill to deal with planning controls. When he made his original statement, the then Secretary of State said:
It has become clear that, if at least one such site
—that is, one concrete platform site—
does not become available this summer, we could lose a significant proportion of the oil which we would otherwise be extracting from the North Sea in 1977 and 1978."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 31st January, 1974; Vol. 868, c. 626.]
It is extraordinary that the present Secretary of State is prepared to allow the Drumbuie inquiry to proceed to its final conclusions.
The Secretary of State has also been advised that the Anglo-French Howard-Doris consortium has decided that unless it can get planning permission through, it will seek a site in Scandinavia, possibly in Norway. Will this be good for British industry? I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will discuss this possibility with the Under-Secretary for Energy, who told a Labour Party conference in Ayr,
We recognise that we might well have to introduce a Bill to enable us to secure quickly and compulsorily certain sites for building platforms.
The Secretary of State has one idea. The Under-Secretary apparently has another. I suggest that the Government put their heads together to decide whether it would not be better to bring in a Bill to deal with all the vexatious problems of planning.
I recollect repeated occasions on which the Secretary of State, then on this side of the House, asked the Government of the day whether they were prepared to produce a document on fuel policy for the United Kingdom. I asked the same sort of question. I wanted to know when were we to be told how oil, natural gas, coal and atomic energy were to fit together in a fuel policy. But no document on this has yet been produced. We have been told that the Labour Party, through its research organisations, has been working for a long time on this, but little new detail is coming forward today. The Government could easily have postulated something, but nothing has appeared.
Why have we no policy yet on this? Why can it not now be said what the position will be for oil in the next five to 10 years? Why can there not be predictions about oil and about the position of coal? We are having a debate without having available any of the facts of the fuel policy which the Government have in mind. The Government are increasing uncertainty not only for companies involved but also for back benchers. The Scottish nationalists want a model produced of the whole of the part of the North Sea relative to Scotland. They want to know about infrastructure and about where the tertiary, secondary and primary industries will be, and how the population will be assimilated. We are told by the Highlands and Islands Development Board that there will be another 20,000 to 30,000 people in that area in future years. How will this mosaic be dealt with? Will the Government say whether they have prepared a model of the North Sea? If they have and if it is ready, may we have an opportunity to look at it?

6.16 p.m.

Mr. Eric Moonman: The comments of the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Skeet) are relevant. The only point upon which I disagree is his assumption that the Government—still precious after three to four weeks—could now be criticised for not producing a fuel statement. This has been a continuing problem of successive Governments, and back benchers on both sides want to see it put right.
I hope that in the concluding speech account will be taken of some of the points raised by back benchers. The previous debate on energy, on 13th March, was a thoughtful debate, but there was not adequate opportunity for a full reply. I hope that Ministers will appreciate that there is deep concern among industry, specialists and hon. Members about energy problems.
It would be a poor practice, and a change of practice, if we were now to become accustomed to a procedure—which did not apply when I was previously in the House until 1970—in which winding-up speeches are regarded as an opportunity for further political exercises, with the result that back benchers who have taken the trouble to raise questions are unable to get a meaningful response.
While the debate on 13th March was thoughtful, it did not get to grips with the important decisions which have to be taken. As other hon. Members have observed, it is now almost a privilege for hon. Members who do not represent Scottish constituencies to take part in these debates. There is an almost Pavlovian response to the word "energy" by hon. Members representing constituencies north of Glasgow.
I am delighted that industry has now become an acceptable subject for debate—this was not previously the case—but it would help if some hon. Members get the facts right and were less emotional on the matter. Hon. Members can relate many experiences regarding energy, particularly those relating to the eastern sector of England. But let us not turn this into a regionalised debate. The issue is much more serious. Perspective seems to be lacking in these debates on energy.
I do not criticise the Opposition for providing the opportunity for a debate on energy, but I am concerned that the debate has not been sufficiently far-ranging. It has been narrowed down to one form of energy—oil—and we have not looked at other forms of fuel such as coal.
Coal is still one of the cheapest primary fuels available, even if we are to pay the miners a respectable wage. It makes good sense to use coal as the principal fuel for generation of electricity and to keep oil for uses for which coal cannot be substituted. But we must not leave it at that. More money must be spent on research into the better use of coal and into better ways of getting it out of the ground and into the power stations. What research projects are taking place into getting better results from coal?
The nuclear power question has not been resolved. When considering an integrated energy policy, we must make a decision regarding nuclear reactors. There has been much speculation in the weekend Press about this. Indeed, it seems that the weekend Press combined a review of the problem of Concorde with looking at the question of nuclear reactors.
The Government have a responsibility to put many people out of their misery and must take a meaningful decision on

nuclear reactors. The right hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Jenkin) said, rightly, that this is an international problem which must be looked at across countries and continents.
In the last month or two we have had to come to terms with the idea of becoming one of the world's major oil producers. But the reaction to this idea in some parts of Britain has become alarmingly small-minded. I would not wish to try to stifle the Scottish National Party in claiming Scotland's rights, but we ought not to concede those claims. We should not think in terms of only Scotland or only Britain. We should think in terms of Europe as a whole, and if we get our terms right we have a future in Europe. The EEC has made clear that it understands that the oil is Britain's. But we must see the larger context of North Sea oil as part of a coordinated European energy policy.
I hope that the Government will now come forward with plans for getting Britain's share of the North Sea oil bonanza. We must disillusion oil companies that there is no public support for Government participation in North Sea oil. On the contrary, the majority of well-informed people welcome some kind of State participation to get the financial benefits for the nation as a whole, not only for the international oil companies.
The right hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford said this afternoon that the example of Norway was not comparable with Britain's situation. I do not understand that argument. The hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Skeet) mentioned this point, and other people have also decided that because we have a problem regarding our economy we cannot use the type of scheme which operates in Norway. At best this is a rather phoney argument.
Let us look at the Norwegian experience. The Norwegian Ministry of Finance made clear in a White Paper published on 15th February that the key role in exploration as well as in exploitation would be played by Statoil, the wholly-owned Government corporation set up in 1972 to operate the State participation interests in North Sea oil. In a subsequent White Paper the Norwegian Ministry of Industry said that Statoil should have in principle a minimum 50


per cent stake in all the licences due to be allocated in the current concession round, and made clear that there was little prospect for speculative enterprises.
Those are not only adequate methods of operation but also sound principles, and I cannot see why they should not apply in this country. Norway has already ensured financial benefits for the nation through area fees, which in future will rise sharply after nine years, and through royalties fixed on the basis of a mutually-agreed royalty price, not much different from that suggested by the hon. Member for Bedford. The same applies to income tax.

Mr. Skeet: If the companies are prepared to accept the posted price and to pay taxes accordingly, what is the need for a whole variety of State companies?

Mr. Moonman: It has been pointed out that Norway is getting the best of both worlds. It is trying to use both methods. In a flexible industry, it is necessary to have as many new ways as possible of dealing with the problem. This is good business sense and not a doctrinaire point of view.
The Norwegian Government have between 5 and 40 per cent. of the interest in eight developments. There is no danger of the oil companies withdrawing from either the Norwegian or the British oilfields if we follow suit. The North Sea is much more stable than the Middle East, where nationalisation has been more arbitrary than anything we could think up or anything that the Scottish National Party could devise in the next three or four days.
Turning to the future, we must begin to consider some of the new technologies. Admittedly this debate has been about oil. This is the wrong perspective: there are other forms of energy. Solar energy is not science fiction. It can be used not necessarily as a substitute for fossil and nuclear fuels but in addition, for topping up. If the Secretary of State cannot answer this today, he might consider this form of energy and also the possibility of setting up a Select Committee.
After all, in a dozen countries, including the United States, the USSR, Israel, Japan and Australia, several million homes get their hot water from solar energy. Maximum exploitation will re-

quire the building of a satellite solar power station. This is an excellent opportunity for a joint approach in Europe, but all our efforts will come to nothing unless the Department of Energy succeeds in breaking the stranglehold of Government red tape.
The Sunday Times said last weekend:
The total incompetence of the British system of government at taking difficult decisions is underlined by the nuclear affair as much as by Concorde and Maplin. The arrogance of the 'behind closed doors' system of decision making is matched only by its ineptness. Profound changes are still needed.
We have heard a great deal about open government over the last few years. This is the type of vehicle which would not only help the basis of decision making but would improve it.
We have the opportunity to turn over a new leaf in regard to energy. Will the Minister commit himself to a total energy policy? To do so meaningfully will mean getting across the answers to the fundamental questions that I now wish to put. First, what is the lead time to produce the necessary technological innovations and economic and social rearrangement? This was very much the point over Drumbuie. Second, how reliable are our estimates of our fossil fuel reserves? Third, how long will the world stocks of natural fuels last, and what is the availability of natural substitutes? Most important of all, is my right hon. Friend's Department equipped to answer these questions and make the decisions which are implicit in the answers?

6.28 p.m.

Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith: I should like to start by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. Fairgrieve) on his maiden speech. We were all impressed not only by the sincerity of his case on behalf of his constituents but also by his knowledge of the oil industry as it affects his constituency and North-East Scotland.
My hon. Friend showed a good balance in what he said. He showed concern about the present and about the Government's investment support which will be necessary in housing, and also in communications so that the people in North-East Scotland know what the Government are doing. He also looked to the future


and the tremendous challenge for Scotland in sharing in the new technology and taking it to different parts of the world. Those who elected my hon. Friend will realise that they have in him a champion of their cause.
I thank the Secretary of State for Energy for his announcement about strengthening the Offshore Supplies Office in Glasgow. I hope that Scottish industry will respond to that lead. I wish well to the efforts of the departments which will be operating in Scotland in this way.
I also congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on what was implicit in his speech—the abandonment of the policy of nationalisation. This was in contrast to the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Lambie), who impressed upon his Government his desire for that policy. It did not go unnoticed that the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) pointed out that the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire had more in common with the Scottish National Party on this issue than with his own Front Bench. I hope that that does not go unnoticed in Scotland.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: I think that the hon. Gentleman has misconstrued my remarks. I was saying that the hon. Member's argument was more with his own Front Bench because it is within his Front Bench that he would hope to make changes, whereas any argument that he might have with us would be simply a matter of argument over why the carried-interest system is much superior, particularly in the early stages, to outright nationalisation.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I am glad that the hon. Member has modified his remarks, which were ouite clear to me, especially wtih regard to the future.
I thank the Secretary of State for the two or three things I have mentioned, but that is all I can thank him for. He left me with the impression that his speech had been written in advance of the debate and had not taken into account what my right hon. Friend the Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Jenkin) had said. He did not try to answer any of the questions put to him by my right hon. Friend.
I was interested in the right hon. Gentleman's concern about Lord Balogh

—apparently a new protected breed which seems in danger of extinction. Apart from that, however, the right hon. Gentleman's speech was barren concerning tile future of the industry. My right hon. Friend did not ask the Secretary of State for a fully-fledged oil policy. He acknowledged that the Government had been in office for only a few weeks and that we want them to come to considered decisions.
What my right hon. Friend asked for but did not get was clarification of the many conflicting statements which the Secretary of State and his right hon. and hon. Friends have made about oil since they came to office. This is the kernel of the problem for the industry, which needs confidence and continuity. The right hon. Gentleman gave us neither, and he clarified none of the confusion which has surrounded statements made in recent weeks. He gave us a further proliferation and confusion of half-baked politics.
What was particularly curious was the right hon. Gentleman's obsession with the continual comparison of oil policy here and in the Middle East. This shows a total ignorance of the fact that Britain has a completely different economy and plays a different rôle in the world. We are a developed, mature country, an industrial nation trading in many commodities in almost every part of the world. The right hon. Gentleman's speech was yet one more example of the super, insulation of modern Socialism. I hope that his hon. Friend will attempt to reply to some of the pertinent questions put by my right hon. Friend. If he fails to do so, those concerned with this issue will have confirmation of their fears that the Government's mind is barren.
I turn to what we did during the years we were in government. [Laughter.] It is all very well for Labour Members to laugh. Some of them have not been to the areas where developments are taking place. They have not seen the great achievements. I say to the hon. Member for Dundee, East that there is no impudence on our part in raising this subject. We have a record in Scotland of which we are proud. I am happy that it should be deployed and discussed now. We have a fine record of achievement particularly in connection with the support of North Sea oil and offshore oil generally in Scotland. It is only in the


past three and a half years that many of the opportunities have become realities.
The last Conservative Government invested millions of pounds in support of North Sea oil. We began a road improvement programme costing £60 million. This included work on the A9 from Perth to Invergordon and on the East Coast, on the Perth-Aberdeen-Inverness road. Ports are fundamental to the exploitation and development of North Sea oil. Anyone who visits Aberdeen, Peterhead, Montrose or Lerwick can see for himself the scale of the investment that has taken place under a Conservative Government. There has been similar investment in airports at Dalcross and Dyce. Housing has also been encouraged through local authority activity and the Scottish Special Housing Association.

Mrs. Winifred Ewing: What about schools?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: We have also put money into education and other services. Investment in such services was exempted from the public expenditure cuts of last year. That was a measure of the importance we attached to this work. I ask the Minister to give us the assurance that this area will continue to be exempt from any future cuts in expenditure.
The action taken by the Government in the past few weeks does not encourage us to hope that the investment which we have stimulated will be carried forward with the same enthusiasm. Instead there has been increased expenditure in other directions. We see the risk of growing inflation following the surrender to those who oppose a coherent incomes policy. In the past week there have been swingeing tax increases on industry with a consequent threat to the growth of the economy. This puts at risk our programmes of investment and threatens current development. I ask the Minister to assure us that the work we began will be continued.
The Secretary of State spoke about slippage. That is something which can occur in this type of situation. But we are worried about the reasons for it. We have to accept the unavoidable reasons. What worries us is that some of the reasons may be avoidable. This

was the burden of the questions put by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wanstead and Woodford. There could be tremendous dangers to planning inherent in this slippage question. The whole issue of planning brings into focus the conflict and confusion among different members of the Government.
Just after he came into office, the Secretary of State for Scotland was reported in the Scotsman of 13th March under a headline saying
Mr Ross scraps Bill to acquire oil sites.
The Aberdeen Press and Journal of 29th March carried the following headline:
Strong-arm hints by Strang.
On the one hand we have the Secretary of State saying that he intends to go slowly and wants to consider things while his colleague, using the mailed fist, lightly veiled, says "If you do not get things moving, we are prepared to shorten planning procedures." We have a right to know what the position is.
The statement made by the former Secretary of State on 31st January was sensible, taking appropriate account of the realities of the situation. Our proposals contained real safeguards. [Interruption]. I ask the Secretary of State to read the exchanges which took place on 31st January. In those exchanges we made it clear that our new planning procedures would be confined specifically to the production of offshore oil and gas. We pointed out that they would avoid proliferation of sites and would include provision for the proper restoration of sites. We in no way eroded the position of the Secretary of State for Scotland as regards his planning functions. Our proposals would have protected the rights of individuals and maintained the position of the Secretary of State for Scotland.
We have had no clarification so far of the Government's policy. I hope that we get it soon. What is worrying is that if confidence and continuity are lost, not only shall we lose production but we shall lose the opportunity for the United Kingdom to participate in the building and supply of modules for the production rigs. That is where we have to balance the effect on areas where the rigs are to be built with the effect on central Scotland and the industry there. These must benefit as much as the areas where development takes place.
Time does not stand still on this matter. We want to hear the Government's policy on how they will ensure that central Scotland and west Scotland benefit from North Sea oil.

6.46 p.m.

The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Mr. Bruce Millan): During the debate we had the most agreeable maiden speech by the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. Fairgrieve), and I begin by congratulating him on it. It was fluent and thoughtful and the various points he made will be taken into account by my right hon. Friend and myself. We look forward to hearing further contributions from the hon. Member whether on North Sea oil or on other matters.
The Government welcome the debate because it gives us an early opportunity not to produce an absolutely definitive policy about all aspects of North Sea oil and energy policy, because that could not be expected within so short a period, but of saying a number of important things about certain aspects of oil development. I shall not try to deal with questions of overall energy policy as my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Mr. Moonman) suggested I should, because that is a very wide subject. There is at present in progress an urgent review of energy policy generally and my right hon. Friend will announce the results of that and the form of the various inquiries in due course.
I want tonight to deal exclusively with oil. I begin with the remarks by the right hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Jerkin). The simple answer is that the Conservative Government gave the oil companies in the North Sea more favourable terms than they had been able to obtain in any other part of the world, and we intend to see that this is changed. We intend to see that the national interest is protected at every point, and I fail to understand why the Opposition should get so excited and so dismayed at the prospect.
A number of references have been made to the Norwegian experience. I accept that Norway is not on all fours with the United Kingdom. However, the Norwegians adopted a very much tougher policy with the oil companies and have not frightened them away. It is utter

nonsense for the Conservatives to say that the kind of proposals so far suggested by the Labour Party—the proposals that in due course we shall bring forward—are likely to scare the oil companies away from the North Sea. We are looking at all the possibilities in this sphere, which is what the right hon. Member for Wan-stead and Woodford is demanding, including the establishment of a State hydrocarbon corporation for oil with exclusive buying rights, with pre-State participation on the Norwegian model whereby the State may acquire an interest in fields already proved commercial, paying a proportion of the exploration and development costs and receiving the same proportion of the oil or profits.
We are reviewing licensing policy generally. Our conclusions on all these matters—these are merely some of the possibilities we are considering—will be announced in due course. I take it rather badly to be criticised by the Conservatives at this early stage on matters of licensing policy when only a year ago the most devastating Public Accounts Committee report ever issued showed very clearly the utter neglect of the national interest by the Tory Government in their policies on licensing and taxation of profits. On taxation I can only repeat what my right hon. Friend the Chancellor said in his Budget statement and, later, in the Budget debate. We are looking at these matters and we shall ensure that the oil companies in the North Sea pay their full share of profits tax in Britain and are not able to avoid it by devices arising either through defects in the taxation system or by artificial devices created by the oil companies.
The potential revenues coming to Britain are substantial. My right hon. Friend mentioned the latest estimates that the Government have made of profits of £3,000 million a year by 1980. These figures of course could be an underestimate depending on how the price of oil rises in the meantime. We intend to see that in the national interest we get our fair share of these vast profits which will be made out of the exploitation of an asset which is already nationalised. North Sea oil and gas are already owned by this country and cannot be exploited except by licence from the Government.
On the rate of extraction, the announcement today by the Burmah Oil Company of its latest find suggests that


the reserves in the North Sea will be considerably increased. It now appears from today's indications that the Burmah find will be the biggest yet in the North Sea—bigger, for example, than the Forties field.
We pledged in our election manifesto to ensure that Scotland shared fully in the benefits of North Sea oil in terms of the revenue and otherwise, and that is a pledge we shall discharge when we produce our policies, which I hope will not be very long from now. There has been a general welcome to my right hon. Friend's announcement this afternoon about the setting up of the headquarters of the Offshore Supplies Office in Glasgow. I am glad that it was welcomed by the Opposition, particularly since we pressed that policy upon them when we were in opposition at the time of the establishment of the office and we were turned down because, in the immortal words of the then Under-Secretary of State for Energy, the centre of the energy industry in the United Kingdom was London and must always remain in London. That was an immutable fact according to the hon. Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery).
We have always recognised the need for the maximum involvement of Scottish industry not only in the exploitation of North Sea oil but in the offshore exploration and exploitation carried on in other parts of the world. This is a burgeoning industry on an international scale and we are not simply looking to the opportunities in the North Sea. The decision to site the office in Glasgow is a deliberate statement of the Government's view that it is important that the west central belt of Scotland should share fully in North Sea oil developments.
I turn now to the proposed centre for drilling technology. One of the gaps identified in the Government's review last year of education and training in offshore development was provision in the United Kingdom of short courses of training for senior personnel involved with drilling. These are drilling superintendents and tool pushers in charge of drilling operations on rigs offshore and engineers engaged by companies who are being trained as drilling engineers.
The Petroleum Industry Training Board has been looking at this matter and we expect to receive from it shortly

a report which will go in the first instance to the Manpower Service Commission. The training board and the industry are agreed that the centre should be located in Scotland, probably at Livingston. I hope we shall soon have the final recommendations on the location. This is of great importance to Scotland. The decision has already been reached that this important training centre, which will serve the whole of the United Kingdom, should be established in Scotland. I take particular pleasure in making that announcement because with some of my hon. Friends I went to see the previous Minister of State, Department of Employment and Lord Polwarth several months ago to ask for an assurance that the centre would be established in Scotland. We did not get that assurance.

Mr. Ewing: Is my hon. Friend aware that Scottish Members do not wish this opportunity to pass without giving their thanks for yet another shift of the important offshore drilling technology centre to Livingston?

Mr. Millan: I welcome my hon. Friend's intervention. I wish that we had had some "Hear, hears"' from the Opposition.

Mrs. Winifred Ewing: Hear, hear.

Mr. Millan: The Scottish Nationalists are very welcome.
I now turn to the question of the Drumbuie oil production platforms. I take the two points that were made by the right hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford. He asked whether we can guarantee that what we are doing will produce in 1977, a Condeep design for the North Sea, a platform which will have been constructed in Scotland. I cannot anticipate the decision that my right hon. Frind will make as planning Minister as a result of the Drumbuie inquiry.
If Conservative Members were so anxious about getting this design in the North Sea, they should have done something about the planning considerations long before 31st January. As the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) has accurately said, he and a number of other hon. Members asked the previous Government continually to say what their policy was on planning matters. It is no good coming


along on 31st January, two days before the election is announced, and suggesting that a Bill will be introduced, and then complaining because the next Government do not take up that Bill.
My hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) asked a pertinent question: whether the Condeep design is the only suitable platform designed for conditions in the North Sea. The previous Government had advice not only from the Department and from the construction companies but from the oil companies and from independent sources on the design of production platforms. I do not want to go further than that.
Evidence was given to the inquiry about such matters, and eventually a decision will have to be made on the evidence. My right hon. Friend will have to make up his mind following the inquiry. It is important that we clarify the matter, and I accept what my hon. Friend has said.

Mr. Dalyell: rose—

Mr. Millan: I can assure my hon. Friend that I take his point. I cannot go further than that.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland is Scotland's planning Minister. He intends to discharge that function and he will not be overridden by any other Minister. I make that statement with the full concurrence of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy. He does not believe that the same thing should happen now as happened under the previous Government—namely, when Lord Carrington was overriding the planning responsibilities of the Secretary of State for Scotland.
We have already said that in the meantime we are not proceeding with legislation for the acquisition of sites on the lines proposed by our predecessors. We shall not do so for two reasons. The first reason is that we did not want to have the Drumbuie inquiry prejudiced. The second reason is that we were not convinced that the kind of legislation which the previous Government had in mind was necessary.
We recognise that the circumstances with which local planning authorities are confronted in dealing with oil-related planning applications raise political and

environmental issues which are novel and difficult. We are considering how we can best review the operation of the existing planning procedures, especially in the difficult and important oil-related applications. We must try to operate the machinery in a way which minimises possible delay and confusion. I hope that soon after Easter we shall be able to indicate how we have decided to proceed. Any review will take account not only of the need to take urgent action but also of the need to allow objectors their right to put their objections.
We have made two important announcements today about the Offshore Supplies Office and a centre for drilling technology. They are only the first of the important announcements which we shall make in our review of oil policy for the benefit of the people of Scotland and the people of the United Kingdom as a whole.

Mr. Walter Harrison (Treasurer of Her Majesty's Household): I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

BURMAH-TOTAL REFINERIES TRUST BILL (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

7.0 p.m.

Mr. T. H. H. Skeet: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The Bill is primarily concerned with a number of issues to deal with the acquisition of land. There is also an important clause which deals with the various works which are to be performed by the company.
It may be helpful if I outline the proposed developments. The oil refinery is envisaged to occupy approximately 360 acres. It will have a capacity of anything between 6 million and 12 million tons per annum. The total investment will be approximately £60 million. The location is to be at Cliffe Marshes, Kent. The jetty terminal for the reception of ocean-going tankers is to be adjacent to the refinery.
In 1971 the Port of London Authority granted the necessary licence under the Port of London Act 1968. Further, the Secretary of State for the Environment granted authority for the construction of


a jetty terminal under the Harbours Act 1964.
The road and rail terminal facilities are to he at Hoo junction, Higham. The British Railways Board supports the project. There are to be pipelines between the refinery and the road and rail terminal, which will probably be about three miles away. The Secretary of State is minded to grant outright planning permission. There has been some discussion over the access road leading to the refinery. It was originally envisaged that access would be by way of Gravesend Road. That idea has now been dropped as the Secretary of State indicated that he would not support the proposal.
It might be helpful to the House if I indicate where the companies fit in. United Kingdom Total Oil Marine Limited is one of Total's subsidiaries and is best known by its activities in the Frigg Field in block 10/1. It has interests in the Alwyn Field in blocks 3/14 and 3/15. It also has an interest in block 3/19. It is fairly well known to the United Kingdom for its 4 per cent. interest in the Ekofisk Field in the Norwegian sector. Therefore, Total has interests which it may wish to refine at a later date when oil starts to come from the fields which I have mentioned.
The Burmah group, as we have heard today, has discovered a substantial extension of what may be the Ninian Field which was discovered by BP in block 3/8. Its extension is in block 33. By its acquisition of Signal Oil and Gas the company holds a 19 per cent. interest in the Thistle Field in block 211/18. Production from that field could be as much as 100,000 barrels a day in 1976–78.
I want to give some outline of how the companies fit together. The BurmahTotal Refineries Trust Limited is owned equally by Total Oil Refineries (G.B.) Limited and Burmah Oil Refineries Limited. The parent company of Total is Compagnie Francaise des Petroles, in which the French Government have a 35 per cent. interest. Burmah Oil Company Limited has a substantial interest in British Petroleum, but that will preclude it from utilising refinery services of BP. It might use the Isle of Grain, but is otherwise precluded.
Burmah Oil Refineries Limited has a small oil refinery at Ellesmere Port, which

produces 27,000 barrels a day, utilised for servicing the area round Manchester. In 1969 Total and Petrofina joined together and established Lindsey Oil Refinery, which produces 200,000 barrels a day. Both these refineries are, I point out, in the North. On the other hand, both these companies have considerable marketing facilities in the South-East and they wish to locate a refinery there, in order to cater for that market. The project is for a £60 million Burmah and Total refinery on Cliffe Marshes at Strood in Kent, with a capacity of 12 million tons, which will be built if the Bill is given a Second Reading.

Mr. F. A. Burden: As far as I understand it, my hon. Friend seems to assume that if this Bill is passed the refinery will be built. The Secretary of State has not yet given permission but has only said that he "may" give it. One should not assume that if the Bill goes through the companies can go ahead and build the refinery, because the Bill will not give that permission.

Mr. Skeet: I was coming to that point. On 22nd March last, a letter on behalf of the Secretary of State for the Environment indicated that the right hon. Gentleman was minded to grant outline planning permission. That was the language used. It will be found in the prospectus laid before the House today. It is worth recalling the letter to the House. It said:
The Secretary of State is satisfied that it is in the national interest for additional refinery capacity to be made available to meet expected requirements in South-East England.

Sir Bernard Braine: Rubbish.

Mr. Skeet: My hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East (Sir Bernard Braine) may have in mind Canvey Island, where he has certain difficulties about refineries. It is for the Secretary of State to decide whether there is enough refining capacity in the South-East and whether he is to allow additional capacity.
Total markets 45 per cent. of its sales in the South-East of England, including East Anglia, and about 25 per cent. in Lincolnshire, Yorkshire and the Midlands. Obviously, its refinery on the Humber will cater for the market north of London, but it is essential to have refinery capacity available in the centre of its market in the South-East. Exactly the same


argument will apply to Burmah. Between 45 per cent. and 50 per cent. of Burmah's market is in the South-East and East Anglia and about 45 per cent. in the Manchester area. Burmah argues that it, too, will require additional capacity in the South-East.

Mr. John Ovenden: The hon. Gentleman is making a case more for the inadequacy of the companies' refining capacity in the South-East than a case that the overall capacity in the South-East is inadequate. The Secretary of State's statement was based upon the overall refining capacity in the South-East and not on the capacity of the two companies concerned here.

Mr. Skeet: I am coming to that in a moment. I suggest that, when the matter came before the inquiry, the argument was put in a reasonable way. Paragraph 323 of the Report says:
On the basis of the evidence given I am satisfied that both need extra capacity to serve primarily the South-East and that the consequences of not obtaining it in this region could well be increased imports of products and loss of potential exports. Subject to my reservations in the last paragraph… I consider that the siting of a refinery in the region would be in the national interest.
The inspector, therefore, was interested in two points—the increased prices we would have to pay for imports and the loss of potential exports to Belgium mainly and, possibly, to Scandinavia. Therefore, the project is brought into the wider picture.
I want to amplify this aspect. The savings to the balance of payments by placing a refinery on the Cliffe Marshes with a capacity of 6 million tons would be £13 million in round figures. If the refinery were twice that size, the saving would be £26 million. It might be argued that it would be feasible to extend existing refineries north of London, about 200 miles further north, or to build one in Scotland. But it would be entirely uneconomic for the two companies to supply the South-East, where their market is, from the North. Refinery costs work out at £1·40 a ton compared with distribution costs of £2·80 a ton.
The saving on distribution costs of a refinery based on Cliffe Marshes, compared with the distribution costs following expansion of the companies' refineries located in the North, would be £2,400,000

per annum on a 6 million ton per annum capacity refinery at Cliffe Marshes, and double the saving if it were larger. The saving would be even greater compared with refining in Scotland.
It has been suggested that the two companies might acquire refining rights from other companies. But, of course, they would have to pay heavily for doing so. This would add up in any case to importing products from abroad for Total. Burmah would be left to buy on the open market. The case can be made out on the basis of the companies concerned.

Sir Bernard Braine: But not in the national interest.

Mr. Skeet: Yes, this is part of the national interest. It is an integral part of it.

Sir Bernard Braine: Rubbish.

Mr. Skeet: The inspector himself stated how the two companies are placed. Let us look at the national picture, particularly as it will be if permission is given for a considerable refinery capacity. Refining capacity at the end of 1972 was 123 million tons and domestic consumption was 102 million tons, which is about 85 per cent. of capacity. So there was marginal spare capacity available. By 1975, taking account of current expansion programmes, there will be about 146 million tons capacity as against an estimated home consumption of 118 million tons. By the early 1980s, the respective figures could be 160 million tons and 140 million tons.
Therefore, on a national basis, it can be asserted that there will be need for additional refining capacity in the South-East, an area where there is going to be considerable increased consumption, and that although other refineries are already on stream on the Thames there is certainly a place for this one. I am putting this on the basis that the House approves the Bill and the Secretary of State carries out his intention of following it up with full planning permission.
This refinery was originally scheduled to go on stream in 1976. But, of course, there have been planning difficulties, of which we are fully aware. It was going to operate on Iranian light oil similar to the Forties oil from the North Sea, and would thus produce products mainly for


the home market, though some would be available for export as well.
I come now to one or two matters that may interest the House on environmental factors. The report has mentioned that there are no serious objections on pollution, noise, navigational safety and agriculture grounds. This is part of the statement covered by this letter from the office of the Secretary of State on 22nd March. The inspector, a copy of whose report is enclosed, found no serious objections to the refinery on grounds of pollution, noise, navigational safety or agriculture. One would expect that the inspector, having listened to all the evidence and having come to the conclusion that on these grounds there was no objection, this House would be prepared to accept that conclusion.

Mr. Burden: Despite all that, the inspector's decision was that it should not go ahead.

Mr. Skeet: Yes, but the Minister called in the report, and on these specific points he accepted the inspector's view that there were no serious objections on these grounds. While there may nave been a rejection on the broader issue, the inspector's comments carried weight on the particular issue.
Further, the Alkali Inspector is totally satisfied with the design of the refinery. He is the person who would be concerned with atmospheric pollution, and the Port of London Authority is the body that would be concerned with any water emission that may affect the Thames. These are two specialist bodies which can look into the minute details. I should have thought that if they produce evidence before the inquiry, such evidence should be accepted by the House

Sir Bernard Braine: Is my hon. Friend not ignoring the fact that after years of representation from Members representing Thamesside communities the Minister for Local Government and Development in the late administration conceded in this House on 16th November that perhaps we were right in believing that this area had too great a saturation of plants of this kind? He went on to say:
I believe that my hon. Friend is right that we ought to consider very carefully the whole implications of any further develop-

ment of this kind in the area."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th March 1973; Vol. 949, cc. 903–4.]
He was the first Minister to fly over it in a helicopter, as a result of which he concluded that we were right and that there was no case for further refineries on Thamesside.

Mr. Skeet: I appreciate the point which my hon. Friend is making. One has to look at the market first. But was dealing with the environmental considerations.

Sir Bernard Braine: What about our constituents?

Mr. Skeet: I appreciate that point. But I made the point a moment ago that distribution costs are very substantial indeed. If these companies are to be invited to extend their refineries 200 miles north, they will have to pay all the transportation costs, and savings will not be incurred. If my hon. Friend maintains that the environment will be vastly affected, or raises the question of pollution, may I remind him that I have already advanced what the Alkali Inspectorate has said about the refinery. The inspectorate is satisfied that there would be no pollution derived from the design of the refinery and that there would be no pollution of the Thames.

Mr. Ovenden: Is the hon. Member aware that the inspector, in his report on this planning application, was critical of the applicants for not having investigated locations outside the Thamesside area?

Mr. Skeet: In all these applications to put a refinery anywhere, there is considerable objection. We have just had a debate on Scottish oil. When Chevron endeavoured to put a refinery on the Clyde many objections were put forward. I remember when my hon. Friend was quite rightly concerned on behalf of his constituents because Occidental wanted to put a refinery on Canvey Island. When Murphy and ENI wanted to put a refinery there as well, my hon. Friend stoutly defended his constituents' interests. I have never known a refinery to be built anywhere without a great deal of local pressure, because people say, "Not here, but elsewhere". Surely somebody must look after the national interest.
Why did the Secretary of State write the letter and why did the inspector reach the conclusion that it was in the national interest? Either we shall utilise the North Sea oil, or we shall remain short of oil. If we allow no refinery expansion, there will be difficulties. It is the duty of my hon. Friend to indicate how his constituents will be adversely affected. From the evidence it seems that on the grounds of pollution they will not be adversely affected.
I turn now to the question of environmental considerations. There was a public meeting on 17th December 1971 which was attended by about 300 people. Quite rightly, the companies were present to answer questions. There was also a public inquiry which lasted for approximately one month during which time a variety of evidence was called. The main point taken against the project, of course, was the access road in an area where the road network was not satisfactory.
With regard to landscape, there is much industrialisation in the area—Tilbury power station, Bata Shoe, a coal depot, all on the North Bank; a tip for the GLC, Shellhaven refinery—I dare say that at the time that went down there was great objection—the Mobil Coryton refinery and the refineries on Canvey Island.

Mr. Burden: This is a most serious matter and I dislike having to interrupt my hon. Friend so often, but I should like to ask him now, as he is talking so freely about the environment, whether he has been to Cliffe and looked at it?

Mr. Skeet: I visited this area some years ago, not recently. I have been very patient with many hon. Members who have intervened and should like to deal with points as they arise.
On the South Bank there is the Isle of Grain refinery and power station. Anyone who cares to study the 1970 report of the CEGB will see that the CEGB has it in mind to put a power station next door to the very position of this refinery project on the Cliffe Marshes. Further down is the Conoco jetty and tank farm, a cement works owned by the associated Portland Cement Manufacturers and sand and gravel workings. That is a fair example of the landscape.

Sir Bernard Braine: Is not that enough?

Mr. Skeet: It may well be. But if we are to pursue this line of inquiry nothing will be built, anyway. I am suggesting that these matters can be formulated, discussed and counsel can present the case upstairs in a Committee of the House, where these matters can be gone into much more thoroughly, but it is only right that they should be outlined here.
The more one reads the report the more one is confirmed in the conclusion that it is the coastline which is the consideration and not so much for the protection of the marshes. If I may indicate that point to the hon. Member for Gravesend (Mr. Ovenden)—

Mr. Burden: Me as well.

Mr. Skeet: Indeed, but more so to the hon. Member opposite. The Branch Secretary of the Construction Section of the AUEW, Mr. Thompson, gave evidence at some length—I can cite what he said—in favour of the refinery project. He was supported on that occasion by Mr. Coles, a full-time trade union officer. Those people must have considered both aspects of environmental considerations and the possibility of having a number of jobs provided.
Another matter that will probably trouble hon. Members is the access road. It was envisaged in the earlier stages that some of the products would come away from the refinery by road, but that idea has been dropped. The products are to go by pipeline, by river and by rail, and therefore they will not be heavy loads. The road will be used only for bringing in manpower and a certain amount of service equipment. This matter was fully ventilated during the inquiry. About half the time was spent in dealing with this matter by people who naturally were concerned.
I should like to stress—particularly for the benefit of my hon. Friends—that both the Kent County Council and the Strood Rural District Council, as it then was, accepted that the refinery project was a good one and should go ahead.

Mr. Ovenden: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Secretary of State for the Environment said that he realises that


the refinery could not operate on a permanent basis without the movement of products by road?

Mr. Skeet: That is so. The Secretary of State was specific about the access from the refinery to the north, or inland. He will not permit the movement of petroleum products from the refinery. He told those concerned, "At some later date you can work out alternative proposals, but until you have worked them out and submitted them to me and I have been able to recommend that certain conditions apply to them, I shall probably not turn the outline planning permission into full planning permission." That is probably what the right hon. Gentleman has in mind, although I do not rule out the possibility that at a later date it will happen that way.
I should have thought that the cheapest form of transportation was by barge—that should certainly be utilised—by pipeline and by rail. As I said earlier, it was the British Railways Board which fostered the idea that this project should go ahead. There will probably be oil trains and that sort of thing for the movement of petroleum products from that area.
The Bill provides for the acquisition of certain rights, and this may be worrying hon. Members. These matters were registered under the Commons Registration Act 1965. They all deal with highways, and it is doubtful in law whether the Mead Wall Road could have been registered under that Act. It may well be that these rights will have to vest in somebody, or that the Commons Commissioners will have to decide in whose ownership these properties are. At present they are held in trust by the parish council for the future owners.
The concern must be that this will in some way deprive the public of the right to use some of the land in question, such as Mead Wall Road, Pickles Way and Black Lane. If these are to be made up into proper roads, the public will still be able to pass to and fro on them. In addition, the company has decided that it would be a good idea to have a turntable for vehicles right at the bottom against the Thames shore. This could be used as a public car park and as a starting place for a walk along the Thames. In fact, if it is considered that there is a certain amenity now, there will

be an improved amenity in future. Therefore, land acquisition is unlikely to lead to any diminution in the value of the amenity already enjoyed by the inhabitants of the area.
One must remember that when this project started, in 1970, costs were much lower than now. Costs have escalated by about 50 per cent. and, though it was hoped to complete the refinery by 1976, it is not now likely to be on stream by 1980. Such matters as land options, engineering costs and so on need to be dealt with—perhaps with some urgency. I appreciate my hon. Friend's enthusiasm in opposing this measure, the view that it should not be in their parish, but in the next, but sooner or later somebody must decide—I hope that it will be the Government—that the Bill should receive a Second Reading and that it should go to a Select Committee to consider the arguments by the petitioners such as the Medway District Council, the Cliffe Parish Council and the Dickens Country Protection Society—the last of which is a small group but with extremely important arguments to adduce.

Sir Bernard Braine: And some very important views to listen to.

Mr. Skeet: One is enough in a democracy in which we appreciate the value of argument. The right place for this discussion is upstairs where counsel can cross-examine and deduce the validity of the various arguments.
One can overstate the environmental difficulties. I think that my right hon. and hon. Friends are doing just that. On the other hand, it may be that one can overstate the importance of having further refineries in that area. One recognises that the South-East is one of the fastest growing areas in the United Kingdom. It is certainly right to have a refinery somewhere in the South-East and the place which has been located is on the Cliffe Marshes on the Thames.
I hope that the House will consider this matter most carefully, bearing in mind that it will be desirable to follow up the recommendations of the Minister, and agree that this matter should be carefully examined by a Select Committee.

7.32 p.m.

Mr. John Ovenden: Speaking as the Member for Gravesend,


in which constituency these powers are sought, I ask hon. Members to reject the Bill. The hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Skeet) based his case entirely upon the refinery, but that is not the issue. Whether the refinery will be built is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. We are now considering the provisions for which the Burmah-Total Refineries Trust is asking. I wish to concentrate on two matters that arise from that.
First, I consider the Bill to be premature. It seeks to acquire land for the construction of a refinery which, whatever else is said, is still the subject of a planning application upon which no decision has yet been taken. That is a matter to be decided by the Secretary of State.
Hon. Members know that after the public inquiry the inspector recommended refusal of the project because of the inadequate local road network and the effect of the refinery on the largely unspoilt area of Cliffe. It is true that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment stated that he had it in mind to grant permission, subject to no road movement of oil deliveries or products, but he recognised that the refinery could not operate permanently in that state, and the question is still what the solution to this problem is. With an inadequate road network, how can the area cope with the effects of this refinery even in future?
The Secretary of State has said that because the permission he had it in mind to grant would lead to a development significantly different from that which was examined by the public inquiry, he was affording all parties the right to make further representations. Some of those representations may be for the establishment of a new inquiry. We must bear in mind that this report has been with the Department of the Environment for 18 months, that two years have elapsed since the evidence was given to that inquiry, and that many factors have changed—not least, the energy position—since evidence was given to the inquiry.

Mr. Skeet: How does the fact that the energy situation has altered assist the hon. Gentleman in suggesting that there should be another public inquiry? If we are to develop, and accelerate the development of, our own oil from the North

Sea, and if we are prepared to refine it over here, we want home-based refineries. As it is right to have refining near to the centres of consumption—it is for these two companies in the SouthEast—why should it not be located in the South-East?

Mr. Ovenden: One of the arguments that could be used is that used by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he spoke about increases in fuel tax, but we should perhaps be considering more ways of economising in the use of petroleum products in this country. The figures given in the report from the inquiry referred to 1975 estimates of demand and refining capacity. Those were figures given in 1972 upon which we must now make a decision in 1974. That is a ludicrous position in which to put ourselves.
I wish to make it clear that I am not opposed in principle to the refinery. The whole argument from the hon. Member centred upon the refinery. We must weigh carefully the advantages and disadvantages for the area affected. I do not believe we have had sufficient time for proper examination since the Secretary of State announced his intentions. That is what we must do now in the light of the Secretary of State's statement and in the light of the inspector's report. For that reason, it would be totally wrong for us to arrive at a decision to grant a Second Reading to a Bill which is to acquire land before the project has even been approved.
Many people in my constituency feel that if the House gives a Second Reading to the Bill it will be to a great extent prejudging the planning issue. They feel that the presentation of the Bill is, for that reason, premature.
I turn now to what for many of us is the major issue but which was dealt with only briefly by the hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden)—the deregistration of common land. The Medway District Council which, from Monday, became the local authority in charge of this area, strongly objects to the proposals to deregister common land, as does the Cliffe Parish Council in whose area this refinery would be sited.
Many people feel, with some justification, that they have been misled over the issue of commons registration. I quote


from paragraph 116 of the inspector's report on the inquiry:
The question of common land is irrelevant to the grant of planning permission. If rights have been established they would be fully protected by legislation and the applicants would have to go through the established procedure.
Is this the established procedure for the deregistration of common land? People are justified in feeling that they were misled by that statement.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: There is something here which puzzles me. My understanding is that we are discussing part of the public highway. This appears to put the matter into a different category. Is it, in fact, what was said at the public inquiry? Would that be relevant to a public highway which happened to find itself registered as common land?

Mr. Ovenden: The references in the report are to common land. We are discussing common land. We are not here to discuss whether it should have been registered. It is a fact that this land has been so registered and is therefore common. Existing legislation lays down procedures which the applicants can follow for the deregistration of commons. Legislation lays down that commons cannot be enclosed except by ministerial order after an inquiry under the Commons Act of 1876. Section 11 of that Act calls, among other things, for public meetings and public notices to be posted. That is the procedure we should like applicants to follow if they wish land to be deregistered. Although they stated at the public inquiry that they would go through the established procedure, it is obvious from this Bill that they have no intention of so doing and that they seek to bypass the normal procedure.
Many people consider this Bill to be entirely contrary to the spirit of the Commons Registration Act 1965. I believe that the onus in this debate is upon the promoters of the Bill to prove that they need the powers they are asking for in it.

Mr. Skeet: What was the purpose of registering this land if it were only a piece of highway? It may have been to provide continuous easement for the public to go in with it. It will be a highway in any event. It would be put in good condition and they would be

able to move right down to the Thames front and back again at their free will. I cannot see that their interests are impaired—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That was a long interruption. The hon. Member earlier spoke for 33 minutes. Perhaps we can now have a debate instead of an argument.

Mr. Ovenden: I hope later to come to some of the points raised by the hon. Gentleman. As I said, the onus to prove that they need the powers within the Bill is upon the promoters of the Bill and not upon us.
Clause 21 demands sweeping powers to deregister common land. It provides:
Notwithstanding the provisions of the Commons Registration Act 1965, the registration as common land under that Act of the lands to which this section relates is hereby declared null and void and the registration authority under that Act for the county of Kent shall amend the register accordingly.
Those are the sort of powers we are being asked to give the promoters of the Bill.
I understand that the promoters have written to hon. Members assuring them that they will guarantee the rights of people affected by the deregistration procedure. I also understand that in their letter they talk about compensating people for loss of any rights. But we must bear in mind that within this Bill the promoters speak only about private rights, not about public rights. I shall not get involved in a long discussion about whether this land should have been registered. It is in fact registered and there are procedures to be followed for its deregistration.
The Bill raises many issues. It certainly raises the whole question whether there should be an oil refinery in this part of the country. Many of us have had a very short time in which to study the long and complicated report published after the public inquiry. For that reason, I should have been most happy if the promoters of the Bill had withdrawn it and allowed us time to debate the issue calmly before pushing us into a decision on an issue such as this.

7.43 p.m.

Mr. F. A. Burden: The sole intention of the Bill is to provide communications, including roads, pipeline, rail and rail-loading and distribution


centres, to service a proposed new oil refinery on Cliffe Marshes. The proposed area is six miles from the centre of Gillingham and about four or five miles from the centres of Rochester and Chatham.
The Secretary of State for the Environment stated on 25th March that he "may be prepared" to grant outline planning permission for the construction of an oil refinery and jetty on about 360 acres of land on the marshes, and a pipeline, but he does not propose to grant permission for a railway terminal at Hoo Junction, although he does not propose to grant permission for the construction of an access road from there to Gravesend Road, Higham.
I take comfort in the right hon. Gentleman's statement that he only "may be" prepared to grant outline planning permission. He asked for further representations before making the final decision. Parliament has a great responsibility in the decision it makes in discussing this Bill, most of all to the people living in the area. It will affect their way of life and their amenities, not forgetting the effect that the inevitable fumes might have on the orchards and horticulture generally within a 10-mile area.
Of course, the national interest has to be taken into account. Right hon. and hon. Members these days often find it easy to brush aside the rights and interests of individuals and groups of people by saying that something is in the national interest, more as a catch-phrase providing an easy way out than a basis of absolute fact and good sound argument against which the interests and application of the Bill must be weighed. If that were done, I believe that the Bill would be thrown out.
Surely the Minister who will reply for the Government will bring to his right hon. Friend's notice the fact that there have been three official petitions against the Bill. The first is from the Cliffe Parish Council, the area most intimately concerned. The second is from the Medway District Council, which takes in the whole Medway area—a conurbation of over a quarter of a million people. The third is from the Dickens Country Protection Society.
The strongest possible representations have been made to me by the Medway

Preservation Society and the North Kent Wildlife Society. I have also had a considerable number of letters and telephone calls from individuals. All strongly oppose the Bill and the construction of the oil refinery that undoubtedly would follow its enactment.
The Cliffe Parish Council alleges that the inhabitants of its parish would be affected injuriously by the Bill, and it sets out a series of cogent arguments proving this beyond all reasonable doubt. Among those arguments it is pointed out that the construction of the refinery would result in the despoliation of the last stretch of open country on the south bank of the tidal Thames. It is a favourite resort of residents of Cliffe, the Medway towns and Gravesend and for all country lovers living in the area. This point is reinforced by letters I have received from the Medway Preservation Society and the North Kent Wildlife Society pointing out that these areas are widely used by people living in the area.
The Cliffe Parish Council objects strongly to the proposals made by the promoters of the Bill that they be given authority compulsorily to acquire land belonging to that authority for the construction of roadworks and so on. The council says—if it were felt that the Bill would benefit the area, I am sure that the council would not make these statements—that it would be detrimental to the landscape and would be destructive of historical associations.
Common land is involved frequently in Bills brought before Parliament. When suggestions are made in this House that such land should be acquired by some other interest, we should always be extremely critical of any moves to make other uses of it. We must be jealous of the responsibility that we have and do our best in almost every case to ensure that land continues to be used by the public. We must be zealous in our actions to resist any attempt to deprive the public of the pleasure that it can and does give them. There is far too little common land in this country, and I am strongly against its erosion.
The Bill provides widening of existing roads. My hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Mr. Skeet) has made much of the argument that this will not interfere with the surrounding land. But Clause 14(1) of the Bill will give power to:


(d) construct and provide carriageways, footways, sewers, drains and other works and conveniences;
(e) construct and provide all such bridges, arches, piers, embankments, aprons, abutments, retaining walls, wing walls, boundary walls, culverts and other works as may be necessary or convenient for the works or for carrying them over or under any stream or watercourse, any road or any land;
(f) stop up and appropriate the site and soil of so much of any roads as they may consider unnecessary to retain or to throw into the works;
(g) raise, sink or otherwise alter the position of any of the walls, railings, fencings, drains, watercourses, pipes, spouts or wires belonging to any house or building and remove all other obstructions;
They are very wide powers and the House should be very reluctant to give them.
That there is one passage in the Bill which the House should regard with great care. On pages 14 and 15, on de-registration of certain common land, Clause 21 states:
Notwithstanding the provisions of the Commons Registration Act 1965, the registration as common land under that Act of the lands to which this section relates is hereby declared null and void and the registration authority under that Act for the county of Kent shall amend the register accordingly.
There is thus a call in the Bill for a complete change in the law. This is an extremely dangerous precedent that every Member of the House should regard with the greatest suspicion and in no circumstances allow the Bill to go through, if only because of this clause alone.

Mr. Skeet: indicated dissent.

Mr. Burden: My hon. Friend has admitted himself that eventually there must be free road, rail and water access. In the long term there will undoubtedly be congestion by heavy lorries coming in and out of the area, causing great inconvenience and even danger to many people. All this is for the provision of an oil refinery that will employ not more than 300 people when it is finished. I took the trouble this afternoon to telephone and ascertain how many people will be employed when the refinery is finished. I was told by the agents, who contacted the promoters of the Bill, that the total, including those employed at the rail terminal, will not be more than 300.
We already have one oil refinery in the area at Grain, and when there is a

prevailing easterly wind sulphurous fumes can be detected at Maidstone, 20 miles away. This refinery, if built, must cause considerable air pollution over an area in which more than a quarter of a million people live and where the population is still growing. To accept this for not more than 300 jobs—how many of them would be for local people?—is something the House should in no circumstances contemplate.

Mr. Skeet: Paragraph 331 of the report—this is the observation that I should like my hon. Friend to consider—states:
I also accept Dr. Potter's opinion that there is no inherent reason why local communities should be troubled by smell from the proposed refinery or terminal.

Sir Bernard Braine: Oh, really!

Mr. Burden: I should like my hon. Friend to get away from the beauties of Bedford for a couple of days and put himself 10 miles away from Grain with the wind blowing towards him. Unless he has no sense of smell he will realise that the people there are already inconvenienced; and do not want to have to put up with any more smells.

Sir Bernard Braine: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for issuing that mild rebuke. He and I have been Members of this House for many years. He will know that several hundred thousand people living on the north bank of the Thames have been complaining for years about the smells from the two existing refineries, and it is now proposed to add three more. My hon. Friend has made his point.

Mr. Burden: And all this with the destruction of amenities that give great pleasure to large numbers of local people. Cliffe Marshes are a sanctuary for wildlife. Neither the people of the Medway towns nor those in North Kent as a whole want a refinery. Why not put it somewhere else? There must be more suitable areas nearer to the coast for it. It certainly should not be near such a conurbation as that of the Medway towns. I hope that the House will show in no uncertain way what it intends to do.
During his speech my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford tried to indicate that in some way or other this scheme would improve the countryside. I believe that


if the scheme were allowed to go through it would not improve the area but would prostitute a considerable area of land from which people derive pleasure and recreation. Furthermore, it would serve upon them a notice of inconvenience in the future through the intensification of traffic in an area which is already over-intensified with industry, and it would also serve upon them a notice of pollution. This proposal is unacceptable to the people of the Medway towns and of the area in general. I believe that another area could be found in which the refinery would be far more welcome than it is in Kent. I hope, for the reasons that I have stated, that the House will throw out the Bill.

7.58 p.m.

Mr. Sydney Irving: I am happy to support the efforts of my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesend (Mr. Ovenden) to defeat the Bill.
I want first to add my own protest to that of others at the fact that the promoters, who have not yet received planning consent, should be seeking to use the Private Bill procedure to act in a way which could be irrevocable in the loss of common land and detrimental to the interests of people in the area. We in Kent know that urban and industrial expansion is continually increasing its stranglehold on the Garden of England, the beautiful Kent countryside, as well as adding to the danger and annoyance of people in the area.
My first objection is that the road access is inadequate. As the Secretary of State has said, it cannot continue in a permanent form without increased road development. Whether in its interim stage or its permanent condition, it will only add to the appalling congestion in northwest Kent, an already serious problem about which the people in Kent are increasingly angry.
As the hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden) has pointed out, such a refinery would add to the fumes which are damaging to many growers in northwest Kent and would be an increasing irritant to the people living there.
The Bill is associated with one more encroachment, this time in an area of great amenity value to a large number of people in north Kent, an area which is

recognised as being of international importance for wildlife. The Bill could prevent access to this important site, depriving a large number of people of the enjoyment which they derive from the area. The plans for a long-distance coastal footpath around the Kent coast would be made impossible by the closing of the path around the sea wall, and the use of the Mead Wall for heavy traffic or pipeline construction would disturb the colony of common terns at Cliffe, which disturbance should be avoided as this species is rapidly dying out in this country.
All this would be a tragedy anywhere, but it is inexcusable when the company, in presenting its case to the inquiry, urged that in this respect the protection of the general law was adequate. Now, before any final decision or possible further inquiry, the company seeks to pre-empt the future ahead of planning consent by gaining powers to close this common land.
Therefore, I join with other hon. Members in hoping that we shall be able to defeat the Bill.

8.1 p.m.

Sir Bernard Braine: I join with others on both sides of the House who would ask the Government to agree to the withdrawal of this measure. The Bill empowers certain works to be constructed in connection with the building of a new oil refinery at Cliffe. I listened very carefully to the case for the Bill made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Mr. Skeet). He certainly did not convince me, and for one very important reason. The site of the new refinery is almost due south of two very large oil refineries in Thurrock on the north bank of the Thames and only a little further away to the south-west of two new oil refineries which are to be built on Canvey Island in my constituency, close to a large and growing residential population.
The prevailing winds in this area, as my hon. Friends will testify, are southwesterly. Thus for the greater part of the year the emanations from the existing two refineries, from the proposed refinery at Cliffe and from the proposed refineries on Canvey Island, one of which is already being built, will be spread over an area


in which over 300,000 people in southeast Essex have their homes. I wish that I had a large map so that I could display to my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford the consequences of his proposal.
I have protested against the proliferation of industrial plant of this kind in an area where there has already been a huge and unprecedented increase in population. I spent years protesting about it before my hon. Friend even became a Member of the House. Successive Governments, I am sorry to say, have totally ignored the environmental considerations. I beg the House, therefore, to consider what is happening to our Thamesside communities before it approves a measure of this kind. I have asked for this previously and do not apologise for asking the House to consider the matter again tonight.
Consider the facts. We already have two very large refineries on the north bank of the Thames. These have been operating for a number of years. On Canvey Island, where we are to have two more refineries, we have oil storage facilities and the first methane gas terminal in Britain, all concentrated alongside a rapidly-growing residential population. Over the years we have had quite a number of refinery fires, some of them expensive and very damaging. We have had collisions between vessels carrying inflammable cargoes close by these installations. Only a week ago an ammunition ship—which was empty, happily—crashed into the sea wall at Canvey. Two years ago a Spanish liner veered off course, crashed into an oil jetty at Coryton, severed the oil lines and literally set the Thames on fire.
These happenings, taken together, are unacceptable risks, and no Government has the right to add to them. So far it has been one voice against 629 others in this House. I am very glad to have allies here tonight in my determination to draw attention to the grave and growing dangers to our environment as a result of uncontrolled developments of this kind.
I remind the House that it was a Labour Government in 1965 which authorised the first oil refinery on Canvey Island, despite the determined opposition of the residents of the area, despite my opposition and that of the planning

authority. On that occasion the Secretary of State overruled his inspector. It was a Conservative Government which authorised the Occidental refinery in 1972, and again the United Refineries plant last year. In the latter case planning permission was given against the advice of the inspector who conducted the inquiry. Now we have the present Secretary of State "minded" to give planning permission for yet another refinery opposite us at Cliffe.
In a debate on 16th November last I attempted to impress upon Ministers the importance of taking into account the totality of the effect of all these planning decisions upon the environment of the area—the effect upon our road communications and upon navigation in the river, and the growth of industrial fire hazards. Indeed, as I mentioned in an earlier intervention, the then Minister for Local Government and Planning conceded that we have had more than our fair share of installations of this kind.
The Minister agreed with me that there was a case for an interdepartmental inquiry into the totality of the effect of these decisions. He said:
I can assure my hon. Friend that, following my examination of the area from the air, I am in discussion and in consideration of the matter with my colleagues."—[OFFICIAL, REPORT, 16th Nov., 1973; Vol. 864, c. 904.]
I was delighted with that. It was the first admission that we had had enough and that the whole matter should be looked at anew. One would have concluded that second thoughts were at last beginning to prevail in Whitehall.
During the General Election, statements were made by right hon. Members of the Labour Party which convinced many of my constituents that for their part they too were having second thoughts. No less a person than the present Prime Minister wrote to the Castle Point Oil Refineries Resistance Group—Castle Point is the new district covering Canvey Island and Benfleet, where a large number of my constituents live—and all gave an assurance that:
A new Labour Government would reexamine the proposals for the construction of these refineries in the light of strong objections from local residents.
He was refering to the two refineries on Canvey Island. He continued:
On the face of it, it is most unusual for a Minister to reject the recommendations of


the inspector who conducted the inquiry and therefore there is a very strong case for a thorough and full investigation of the whole affair, pending which, of course, no planning permission would be granted.
Someone in the right hon. Gentleman's private office should have told him that planning permission had already been granted in respect of both of the refineries and that one of them was already under construction. Moreover, his own Secretary of State in 1965 had overridden his inspection.
But the matter did not end there. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Grimsby (Mr. Crosland), who was the Shadow Secretary of State for Environment—with no more than a gleam of hope in his eye—wrote a letter to the local Labour candidate saying that
If a Labour Government comes to power I shall look at the whole question of refineries on Canvey again.
Three cheers. I was delighted that such an assurance was given.
Since then, however, we have had a number of developments which throw very serious doubts on those utterances. First we had the Secretary of State himself "minded" to give planning permission for this proposal at Cliffe just across the water. I shall listen with interest to the reply by the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, for whom I have a great deal of respect and affection. Perhaps we shall learn whether the Secretary of State is still so minded after what he told us in the General Election.
I thought it prudent to table a few Questions on the subject and on 20th March I asked the Secretary of State for the Environment
what progress had been made in respect of the requests made to his Department by the hon. Member for Essex, South-East for an inter-departmental inquiry into the economic, social and environmental implications of industrial development in the Thames Estuary, with particular reference to Canvey Island.
The House will recall that the Minister for Housing and Local Government in the last Government conceded that an inquiry of some kind should be conducted since manifestly we had had enough development of this kind. This was the answer I received from the new Minister for Planning and Local Government:
We are aware of the anxieties underlying the hon. Member's question. We do not at

this stage envisage such a wide-ranging study as the hon. Member suggests, but we are reviewing the situation."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th March 1974; Vol. 870, c. 110–11.]
I do not think that that is likely to encourage my constituents after the bold pronouncements made in the General Election by the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for the Environment. I fear therefore, that there appears to be little evidence so far of any intention by the Government to limit oil refinery developments in the Thames Estuary. As one who came near to refusing the Conservative Whip in the last Parliament because of the way my constituency was treated by the Department of the Environment, I should like to point out that in my opinion successive Secretaries of State for the Environment do not care a fig for the environment. We have had example after example of how little they care.
In the course of the debate reference has been made to the so-called national interest. I asked the Secretary of State for the Environment in the last administration to define what he meant by the national interest in this context. I was never given an answer. Of course, we all concede that it is in the national interest that there should be additional refinery capacity. That is not in question. The issue is where should it be located. In the last Parliament I heard Labour Members argue the need for additional refinery capacity in the North-East and East Scotland. One would have thought that there was at least an economic case for siting the refineries somewhere near where North Sea oil was likely to be landed. But the argument made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford was that we already had a great many refineries, electricity generating stations and industrial plant concentrated in the Thames Estuary. Therefore, he argued, what did it matter if we had a few more? After all, he commented, this is where the market is.
Now we are getting at the truth. The national interest relates to the economic case made by the oil companies for siting their refineries close to the market where the product will be sold. I can understand that view, even though I do not accept it, but I have never yet heard a Secretary of State when tackling this problem define the national interest as something which must automatically take precedence over the environmental


interest of people living close by. We have 300,000 people tightly packed into the area between the Thames and the Crouch. On the Kent side there is another large population. How many more installations of this kind must we accept before we reach saturation point? What is the meaning of planning when people, who have put their life savings into their homes in residential areas, find oil refineries at the foot of their gardens?

Mr. Burden: I am sure my hon. Friend will agree that what is so extraordinary about the situation is that on the one hand the Government argue that these new projects must go into the development areas and other areas while the very next moment they seek to push those developments into areas which are already overcrowded.

Sir B. Braine: My hon. Friend is right. He will recall the battle by my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) and myself waged to prevent the Maplin development taking place in a way which would cause the utmost annoyance to people in our area. We had to fight over the siting of runways and access routes. We had to fight to prevent land being reclaimed for the purpose of heavy industry. We had to insist that land should not be reclaimed for heavy industry since that would have had the effect of attracting plant, capital and workers from industrial areas in the Midlands and the North. At last our point was conceded. Essex County Council laid down that Maplin should be developed so far but no further—and for light industry, not heavy industry. In that respect the planners drew the lines carefully. But when it comes to refineries the oil companies somehow or other appear to be exempt from the rules that apply to small business men who want to set up a workshop in an area not far from people's homes. It would seem that a completely different set of rules applies to these large international companies.
I warn the Minister that this is a situation which I shall never accept, never, never. It is certainly a situation which my constituents will not accept. I serve notice on the Labour Government, as I did on the Conservative Government

which I supported, that I shall not tolerate this situation. They cannot count on my support for the proliferation of industrial plant of this kind in an area which already has too much of it and whose inhabitants complain of pollution and the lowering of their quality of life. Such treatment is not good enough. It must stop. I hope that the Secretary of State will take heed of what has been said in this debate.

8.17 p.m.

Mr. David Crouch: I wish to add my still, small voice to that of my hon. Friend across the water, the hon. Member for Essex, South-East (Sir B. Braine). I speak on behalf of many constituents in Kent and I add my voice to what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden).
I am concerned that, in a way, I must wear two hats when dealing with this problem. For some time I have led a campaign in Kent to bring more industry on a limited scale to the north-east Kent coast. In that area there has been a problem of unemployment, although it can be said that they are pockets of unemployment which are not to be compared with the situation in the regions. However, this is a somewhat unusual situation when we bear in mind that my constituency is situated in the otherwise rich area of the south of England.
The introduction of an oil refinery does not bring with it opportunities for a large amount of employment. Job opportunity flowing from the development is limited. The sort of jobs that are offered by an oil company are not in percentage terms over-large in relation to a figure of 300 workers, but I suggest that a great many workers probably will come in from other parts of the country, especially the specialists.
My still, small voice is added to this debate to speak on behalf of the people of Kent. Kent is being overrun, not so much by industry but by the sprawl from London out to the coast as well as from the prospect of a Channel Tunnel and the concrete sprawl that will lead to it. There are also the new railways that will serve this area. Maplin was a frightening prospect to the people of the north-east Kent coast. The time has come when hon. Members who represent constituencies in Kent must call a halt to this


encroachment of their amenities and their enjoyment of life.
I know a great deal about oil refineries and there is no question that they emit an unpleasant smell. Only recently I led a delegation from this House to the port of Antwerp where the stench from the oil refineries was almost unbelievable. Let us hope that in this country we so manage the affairs of oil refineries that they are not as bad as that. I know many refineries at Grangemouth and in other parts of the country, having served for a long time in the chemical industry. We cannot escape the fact that there is a problem of atmospheric pollution from oil refineries.
We have to consider where to draw the line on the encroachment of further industrial development into Kent in this way. This is not the type of job opportunity which I was seeking to mop up the pockets of unemployment which exist on the north-east Kent side. This is really to use the Thames Estuary in the wrong way.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East said, the refineries in the Thames Estuary have been there for a great many years. I know, because I served in the war on Canvey Island and they were there then. I can remember the fires there then. Why should we continue to develop this area as an oil reservoir and an oil refinery area for Britain? Surely we should look elsewhere.
My voice is only a still, small one but it must be raised because people in Kent honestly believe that not a big enough fight is being put up for them in this House to protect and preserve the Garden of England. I hope that the Under-Secretary will not neglect the cry from the people of Kent who are determined to protect themselves against encroachments of this kind.
It is not a dog-in-the-manger attitude. It is one which says "We recognise the national interest." I was one of those who recognised the national interest of the Channel Tunnel. But I had to go back to my constituents about that problem, telling them that I felt there was a national interest to be served—a link to the Continent which required to be met if we were to succeed as a nation in

communications. But the people of Kent felt that they had been let down and that they were making a sacrifice. They recognised the national interest, but they also recognised the sacrifice.
I say again to the Under-Secretary that I am not being dog-in-the-manger. I am not saying that we should not increase our oil opportunity and our oil-refining capacity. But let us look elsewhere rather than constantly coming back to the Thames Estuary and saying that it is the obvious place because it is where we have been for the past 50 or 60 years.
I ask the Minister to consider very seriously what my colleagues and I have said.

8.23 p.m.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: My hon. Friends who have pleaded the case for their constituents and for Kent and the Thames Estuary clearly have a strong argument on their side, but it goes to the issue of planning permission. It is a responsibility of the Department of the Environment, and it is not a matter to which I propose to address myself.
I want to make two points only. The first is that, when I was Minister for Energy, I saw the Department's case for the construction of further refinery capacity, and I was satisfied. In my capacity as Minister for Energy I represented to the Department of the Environment that, apart from any question of where a refinery should be located, it was in the national interest that that refinery capacity should be created. I do not think that my hon. Friends deny that.
My second point is to take up that made by the hon. Member for Gravesend (Mr. Ovenden), who clearly is the hon. Member most affected by the Bill. It concerns Clause 21 and the so-called deregistration of certain common land.
The land in question is the highway. It is a public highway. It is not in good repair, but it is available for use by the public as a highway, and if the Bill goes through in its present form the land will continue to be available for use by the public as a highway. It has been registered as common land, but one has to make the distinction that there have been no common rights registered in respect of it. Mere registration as common land


therefore, does not create any additional public rights over that land. It is not as if it were land which had rights of cattle grazing, rights to take timber, or other common rights such as those with which we are familiar in other parts of the country.
The public interest in this land is as a public highway, and that will be unaffected if the Bill is passed save only in one respect. It is that the Bill will give the promoters the power to restore the highway to a good state of repair and to keep it maintained and in good repair. There may be two views about whether a potholed road or a tarmac highway is the better amenity. That is the only issue which arises on Clause 21.
The hon. Member for Gravesend suggested that the promoters should have used some other procedure in the courts to secure the deregistration of the land. I am not an expert in this branch of the law, but I accept the advice that I have been given, which is that no such procedure exists and that the only way in which the promoters can acquire the power to make good the surface of the highway so as to turn it into a highway which can be used by vehicles is to take statutory powers.
One of my hon. Friends suggested that the Bill is dangerous because it seeks to change the law. That, surely, is the purpose of every Bill before this House, whether public or private. If we were prepared to throw out a Bill because it sought to change the law, we should have no legislation at all.

Mr. Burden: I take exception to the fact that Private Bills should seek to change the law which has been set through parliamentary procedures on Bills which have been passed in the normal way. It sets a very dangerous precedent.

Mr. Jenkin: I understand my hon. Friend's point, but I have been advised that the sole purpose of Clause 21 is to give the promoters the power to make good the highway and that there is no other procedure whereby they could overcome the procedural difficulty that there have been no common rights registered subsequently in respect of it.
I recognise that the main purpose of the debate affects the planning decision. That is a matter entirely for the Depart-

ment of the Environment. As Opposition spokesman on energy, I find it very difficult to express a view upon it.

8.29 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Neil Carmichael): Perhaps I should have intervened earlier but I emphasise that I am in no sense replying to the debate. This is a Private Bill and, as hon. Members who have been here much longer than I are aware, it is for the promoters to secure a majority for the Second Reading. The hon. Member for Essex, South-East (Sir Bernard Braine), in a powerful speech, suggested that the Government should withdraw the Bill, but I am sure that he was carried away and that he realises that it is not within my powers to withdraw the Bill because it is not a Government Bill.
It is important to remember that the application for planning permission relating to this matter is still before my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and is still sub judice. Therefore, I must be extremely careful what I say. I rise to say a few words because it is apparently the custom in these circumstances for Government spokesmen to give the House some indication of the Government's views regarding the Bill being debated.
As the House is aware, the works have already come to the notice of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State by reason of the planning permission which has been mentioned. My right hon. Friend has indicated that, subject to consideration of any further representations —I am sure that the debate is part of the further representations—he is minded to grant planning permission for the refinery, pipeline and rail works. Great play has been made of the phrase relating to my right hon. Friend being "so minded" to grant planning permission and I accept that it is slightly quaint. Following from what I have said about my right hon. Friend's view, we therefore find that the pipeline and railworks are generally accepted, but my right hon. Friend has indicated that he does not feel able to approve the proposals for the distribution of refined products from the refinery by road transport. I cannot anticipate his decision on any alternative proposal which may be subsequently put forward.
It is the convention that Private Bills follow a procedure under which the Government, in most cases, support the Second Reading and advise the House that the Second Reading should be approved so that the Bill can be referred to Committee where all the issues can be properly examined with the benefit of the expert evidence which is undoubtedly produced in Committee.
This is the Government's point of view regarding this Bill, and I hope that what

Question accordingly negatived.

CLIFTON SUSPENSION BRIDGE BILL (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Before I call upon the hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Cooke) to move the Second Reading, I must inform the House that Mr. Speaker has not selected the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Kingswood (Mr. Walker).

8.41 p.m.

Mr. Robert Cooke: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

I have said has been of some value. I have learnt a little on this ocacsion, as procedure on Scottish Private Bills is rather different and I am slightly unfamiliar with the procedure which has been adopted here. Perhaps I should have indicated the Government's views earlier.

Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 16, Noes 67.

Division No. 5.]
AYES
[8.32 p.m.


Archer, Jeffrey
Hill, James A.
Viggers, Peter


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Jenkin, Rt. Hn. P. (R'dgeW'std &amp; W'fd)
Winterton, Nicholas


Carmichael, Neil
Jessel, Toby



Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Finsberg, Geoffrey
Molyneaux, James
Mr. T. H. H. Skeet and


Fox, Marcus
Mudd, David
Mr. Peter Emery.


Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Steen, A. D. (L'pool, Wavertree)





NOES


Abse, Leo
Hamilton, William (Fife, C.)
Selby, Harry


Atkins, Ronald
Hampson, Dr. Keith
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Bates, Alf
Hooley, Frank
Sillars, James


Bidwell, Sydney
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Skinner, Dennis


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Hunter, Adam
Snape, P. C.


Body, Richard
Irving, Rt. Hn. Sydney (Dartford)
Spriggs, Leslie


Braine, Sir Bernard
Jackson, Colin
Stallard, A. W.


Burden, F. A.
Kerr, Russell
Steel, David


Callaghan, Jim (M'dd'ton &amp; Pr'wich)
Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Stewart, Rt. Hn. M. (H'sth,Fulh'm)


Cocks, Michael
Lawson,George (Motherwell&amp;Wishaw)
Stoddart, David (Swindon)


Cryer, G. R.
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Stott, Roger


Dalyell, Tam
Loyden, Eddie
Thorn, S. G. (Preston, S.)


Doig, Peter
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Tyler, Paul


Eadie, Alex
Macfarlane, Neil
Wakeham, John


Edge, Geoff
McGuire, Michael
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


English, Michael
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Wellbeloved, James


Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Madden, M. O. F.
Wise, Mrs. Audrey


Ewing, Harry (St'llng,F'kirk&amp;G'm'th)
Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)
Woodall, Alec


Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.
Newens, Stanley (Harlow)
Young, David (Bolton, E.)


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Orme, Stanley



Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Parker, John (Dagenham)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


George, B. T.
Phipps, Dr. Colin
Mr. David Crouch and


Graham, Ted
Robertson, John (Paisley)
Mr. John Ovenden.


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Rodgers, George (Chorley)

The Clifton Suspension Bridge was first authorised by an Act of Parliament in 1830. It was not finished until 1864 when some civil engineers completed the work as a memorial to Isambard Kingdom Brunel who had originally designed the bridge. The bridge is administered by a private trust charged with the duty of looking after it day by day and of accumulating a sum of money for its replacement when it is worn out.

There have been a number of Acts of Parliament culminating in the 1952 Act, referred to in the promoters' submission and the House may well ask: Why another one? The need for it, in the view of the trustees, is to bring the trustee body up to date in the light of


local government reorganisation and to provide for a wider number of interests among the trustees, as well as to provide a more realistic structure of tolls.

It will be seen in Schedule 2 that for motor cars and such like it is proposed that the maximum toll should be 10p. The present charge is 5p. For goods vehicles weighing not more than four tons —because the bridge will not bear anything greater than that safely—a charge of 50p is proposed compared with the present charge of 25p. The charge for motor cycles, motor scooters, motor tricars and horsedrawn carts remains, broadly speaking, the same as before. Pedestrians will pay 2p; in the previous Act it was 2d. It is not proposed to raise the toll charges until 1975. The trustees have special powers to issue season tickets at reduced rates. That is not mentioned in the Bill.

If there is no increase in tolls the reserve fund will be used up. This reserve fund has been accumulated over the years and is designed for the eventual replacement of the bridge. It is estimated that, at present, replacement would cost £3 million, although that is probably an optimistic estimate. The size of the reserve fund is currently £606,000 or thereabouts, although some of it is in quoted investments which are somewhat depressed at present.

This sum of money might be called upon at any moment if some large repair to the bridge were necessary, such as the renewal of the chains, which are the original ones, dating from the time when the bridge was first opened. They came from elsewhere, but, being made from wrought iron specified by Brunel, they appear to be thoroughly sound. If the tolls were not to be increased in 1975 the reserve fund would run out in 20 years, and after that nothing would be left to pay for renewal of or extensive repair to the bridge.

Some people think that there should be no tolls, but if they were removed forthwith there would be a 10-year spree while the reserve fund would be run down and after that the reserves would be exhausted. I have other figures which I do not propose to quote in full but which give a fair indication of the trends of the next 10 years, and I shall be happy to answer questions on them.

The situation which obtained before the Local Government Act came into force was that the area of the city and county of Bristol was at one end of the bridge and the county of Somerset was at the other. Those two local authorities were represented on the trustee body. Now, however, there is a district council in Bristol, and on the Leigh side of the bridge, which used to be Somerset, there is the Woodspring district authority. The Avon county authority covers the whole area, having taken over that part of Somerset now called Woodspring. The district council in Bristol has accepted the prospect of nominating a trustee, as has Woodspring. Without the Bill, however, Avon county could not nominate a trustee, nor, for that matter, could Woodspring. Somerset can, although it has no territorial claim to one side of the bridge as it previously had. Local government representation on the trustee body would be somewhat confused wit h-out the Bill.

All the new local authorities involved object to the raising of tolls and have combined around one petition, copies of which the House has seen. The trustees have made various offers to the local authorities about consultations and have suggested that if there is disagreement the Minister might be brought in. I do not know whether the Minister would care to indicate what his position is about the difficulty which has arisen between the local authorities and the trustees. Perhaps he would prefer to intervene later?

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Neil Carmichael): —indicated assent.

Mr. Cooke: We shall be hearing from the Minister in due course, it seems.
The objectors to the Bill are supported by at least one hon. Member who has been quoted in the Press, and no doubt we shall have a closely-argued though perhaps not a heated debate. I am sure it is right for the air to be cleared and I shall seek to answer at the end any questions which hon. Members may ask. I shall do so with the help of advisers of the trustees, because they are within call.
A number of related matters are bound to be raised. There is the vexed question of the traffic flow across the bridge and whether the collection of the tolls causes delay to the traffic. There have been


comments in the Press about the difficulties in the collection of tolls. I may say on behalf of the trustees that they have conducted trials of a new automatic system; they show most promising results. That system is likely to be introduced in the foreseeable future. It would not only speed up the flow to the maximum possible extent but would get us out of some of the difficulties which have been experienced with the human factor. My constituents would welcome any speeding up of the flow that could be attained because of the considerable queues which have built up on my side of the bridge at certain times.
I know that the trustees have their difficulties because of the lack of available extra land on either side of the bridge. Much of the land on either side of the bridge is jealously guarded by the citizens of Bristol for the use of all the citizens. Part of the Downs lies on one side and on the other side is National Trust property.
The traffic system has shown promising results and holds out some hope for improvement. It has been suggested that a one-way flow of traffic using two lanes at certain times of the day might help the surge of commuter traffic going in and out of the city. The evidence which I have been shown indicates that there is a substantial flow in either direction at certain times. A one-way flow system might cause inconvenience, but it is right to say that no trials have taken place.
Also to be considered is the effect on traffic when at long last the M5 Avon Bridge is completed. My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. McLaren) and my hon. Friend the Member for Somerset, North (Mr. Dean), both of whom are present, will have their constituencies linked by the new bridge. We do not know what effect the completion of the M5 Avon Bridge will have on the suspension bridge. I concede that that is a valid point. The suspension bridge will be continually in use as an important local road, but it is a fact that we cannot be sure of the effect that the new bridge will have.
The representative or unrepresentative nature of the trustees and the eventual necessity to bring the tolls into line with modern needs, caused by local costs of various kinds, has brought about the Bill.

There have been some unkind things said about the present trustees. I think that it is unfair to attack them. In the eyes of some, they have the local hereditary stamp about them, but there is no harm in that. There are three trustees who could not come into that category and who are distinguished engineers. The other trustees might be called members of the well-established local families. They have all rendered great public service and are well able to discharge their duties as trustees. Bristol is proud that it has families who have been interested and involved in public life for many generations. My family has been involved for only three generations and is still regarded as a bit of a foreigner. I support the idea that we should have continuity.
I am the hon. Member who crosses the bridge more than any other hon. Member. There are Members present who have considerable experience of doing so, especially my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin). I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Somerset, North and my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West both use it from time to time. We have suffered the privations which the public suffer, namely, the clogging up of the bridge at certain times despite the efforts of the trustees to alleviate the situation. It is good for us to experience the same privations. Of course, we have been sent here to try to help the public in every way possible. We hope that we shall be able to explore all the possibilities as the debate proceeds.
The trustees have preserved the bridge well. They have plans to improve the traffic flow, and so on, to make it the more able to cope with modern conditions and an unknown future—because we cannot know what the future holds. Brunel would be surprised that there should be a parliamentary argument about the upkeep of the bridge, because Bristolians built it and have managed it since 1864. Now, 110 years on, Bristolians are asking Parliament to give them the power to secure the financial and structural future of the bridge. There is a certain continuity here, though the world is a rapidly changing place.
If hon. Members wish to ask questions, I will endeavour to answer them, but I have no doubt that we should give the


Bill a fair debate, and as the Member of Parliament for half the bridge, I have the pleasure, on behalf of the trustees, to recommend the Bill to the House.

8.56 p.m.

Mr. Terry Walker: The hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Cooke) has given what I consider to be lukewarm support for the Bill. I feel it right that one should respond to this case although I am something of a rarity here in that I am a Bristolian.

Mr. Robert Cooke: I would hate the hon. Gentleman to think that, because I used moderation in my approach, I was lukewarm. I said that we should give the Bill a fair debate. I am as good a Bristolian as is the hon. Gentleman. Having been brought up in Bristol Zoo and having used the Clifton Suspension Bridge since I could walk I can perhaps claim an even closer association with it than he can.

Mr. Walker: That is quite right. However, my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South (Mr. Cocks) has in the past opposed the Bill, and all credit to him for doing so.
What the hon. Member for Bristol, West did not mention is that Bristol District Council with Bristol Corporation—which ceased to exist on 31st March—presented a petition against the Bill, objecting to certain provisions in it. The district council's basic objection is to Clause 8, which would repeal Schedule 3 to the Clifton Suspension Bridge Act 1952 and substitute a new schedule. The effect of Clause 8 would be to authorise increased tolls to be taken from traffic using the bridge.
I agree that the bridge is a memorial to the work of Isambard Kingdom Brunel, but it is unrealistic to suggest that there is need to build up a reserve fund by increasing the tolls. The bridge is indeed a memorial to Brunel and is in no way part of the traffic network. This point was mentioned previously when the M5 bridge was projected, and when the new bridge is built—we hope it will not be too long delayed—the traffic along the present highway across the Clifton Suspension Bridge will be seriously diminished. It is, therefore, inappropriate

that funds should be made available for improving the highway or maintaining it over the suspension bridge.
It is envisaged that motor vehicles will use this bridge for as long as possible, but when it is declared unsafe for that purpose it will revert to pedestrian purposes. If, however, we reach the stage that pedestrians are not allowed on the bridge, it should be kept as a memorial.

Mr. Robert Cooke: I think that the hon. Gentleman proposes to allow the bridge to stay there even if nobody is able to use it because it is run down. Is he seriously suggesting that the bridge should be abandoned as an avenue for road traffic, and that the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Somerset, North (Mr. Dean)—from Leigh Woods —should not be able to come across to my constituency of Bristol, West without going to the bottom of the gorge? Is the hon. Gentleman seriously suggesting that he would tolerate the situation that the bridge would stand there and nobody would be allowed even to walk on it?

Mr. Walker: I am saying that what has been put forward in the Bill is completely unrealistic. There is no question of the bridge being removed or superseded. This is a memorial to Isambard Kingdom Brunel, and it can never be replaced by anybody in this century. It is important that it is kept up to standard, but it is in no way part of the network of the road. Therefore, for the promoters of the Bill to increase the toll at this time as they envisage is to show that they are out of touch with reality. To say that there is a need to accumulate funds for the purpose of replacing the bridge in due course is wholly unrealistic.
We seek to delete Clause 8. We have considered the implications of the Bill, and we feel that it must be considerably redrafted. That is why we very much hope that the Bill will be rejected tonight, redrafted by the promoters in consultation with the new Bristol District Council and then submitted again in a new form.

9.2 p.m.

Mr. Paul Dean: The House is grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Cooke) for promoting this Bill tonight and for giving the House an opportunity to debate it.
As my hon. Friend said, the Bill has two main purposes. The first—the one which easily takes up the biggest proportion of the clauses—is to widen the base from which the trustees are appointed, and, in particular, to include representatives from the new Avon County Council and the Woodspring District Council. I welcome that gesture on the part of the trustees. It is an effective and up-to-date approach to the new situation, and I strongly support it.
The other main purpose of the Bill is to provide power for a possible increase in the toll. I am not so happy about that aspect of the Bill. I have received many objections from local authorities, both old and new, from parish councils in my constituency and from a number of voluntary organisations, women's institutes and other organisations of that kind. I have passed those objections on to the trustees and have told them that I should find it difficult to support this part of the Bill unless they are able to meet the objections which have been put forward.
The trustees have had close consultations to try to meet the objections, but, unhappily, on this aspect agreement has not, as I understand it, so far been reached.
Against that backgroud, I make three points, the first of which is concerned with the main matter raised by the hon. Member for Kingswood (Mr. Walker), namely, whether it is necessary to increase the tolls. I pay tribute to the trustees for their past record h this respect. Not many organisations can say that they have not increased their prices for 20 years. The trustees can say that, and I am glad to put it on record publicly in the House tonight.
But, having said that, I cannot agree that a case has yet been made out for an increase in the tolls, especially since, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West said in introducing the Bill, increases are not required until 1975 at the earliest. There is in my mind, therefore, a question mark over that. The case has not been made out.
On the other hand, I disagree with the point which, I think, the hon. Member for Kingswood made, that the bridge can be allowed to run down because the trustees do not have sufficient resources

to keep it going. I know that that would be against the interests of my constituents. Many of my constituents, and those of my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin), use the bridge at present. I shall be extremely surprised, even when the M5 bridge is opened and through traffic is moving in other directions, if there is not a considerable demand for the use of the bridge by people who travel from North Somerset and Weston-super-Mare to do their work in the morning and return in the evening.
There is an obligation on the House to give the Bill serious consideration. If we were to deny the trustees the wherewithal to keep the bridge operating, it could easily be damaging to the interests of our constituents who will probably have to use the bridge for many years to come. I am, therefore, rather unhappy about that aspect of the remarks of the hon. Member for Kingswood.
Another reason why I am unhappy about letting the Bill through with a clause providing for increases in tolls is that this is a difficult time at which to judge this matter. In a few months' time, we hope, the Avon bridge will be open, which will relieve some of the through traffic. Therefore, it is intensely difficult for the House to assess at this moment the case about tolls which the trustees are putting forward. All I am saying is that I have a question mark in mind. I am not yet happy that the case has been made out.
The other aspect which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West was traffic flow. There is no doubt that the problems of commuters travelling into Bristol in the morning and leaving in the evening are acute. They get worse year by year as the population increases, and the road programmes, under both Governments, have not kept up with the steep increase in commuter population.
The trustees have done their best to improve the traffic flow, but when my constituents tell me that they should not even have to think of paying increased tolls unless there is a quid pro quo on better traffic flow, I think they have a good case. I was glad to hear that the trustees are now experimenting with automatic systems to this end. But it would help the passage of the Bill to have a little more information about what


is involved and how long it is likely to be before these improvements can he introduced. If we can tell our constituents that, as a result of paying a little extra, they will have a better service and be able to cross the bridge faster, it would strengthen the trustees' case.
Finally, I come to the procedures for the increase in tolls. Both the old and the new local authorities have asked not only for the opportunity, which we all welcome, of having a trustee on the board but an opportunity of being consulted on any increase in tolls and of giving their consent. They have said that in the event of their not being able to give consent, they should like that deadlock situation to be resolved by the Secretary of State for the Environment. That has always seemed to me to be a reasonable suggestion, and I regret that so far the trustees have been unable to meet it. It is a reasonable safeguard in the interests of a large number of our constituents who use the bridge.
I end by putting two points to my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West. First, to help us decide our attitude on this debate, will the trustees consider two things? Will they agree to the plea which has been made by the local authorities not only for consultation but for consent and for bringing in the Secretary of State for the Environment in the event of there being a dispute? If they were prepared to agree to this, it would deal with most of the legitimate criticisms advanced by the local authorities, and I should be very much happier about the Bill.
Secondly, if they are not prepared to agree to that, is it necessary, at this point, to have the clause dealing with the tolls? As my hon. Friend said that the increased tolls are not required until 1975 at the earliest, would it not be possible to deal with it later?
It would be helpful if my hon. Friend could, as the debate proceeds, deal with those two points. I should be reluctant to vote against the Bill tonight because there are some clauses which I believe to be highly desirable, and I certainly do not feel that I can say definitely at this point that there is no case for an increase in tolls. There may be.
The procedures which are involved in the Bill are not those which have commended themselves to the local authori-

ties. They are not those which give sufficient guarantees as to improved traffic flow on the bridge. If my hon. Friend were able to meet us on some of these points, I would be content for the Bill to go forward in Committee when these matters can be considered in more detail. If it were not possible to do that, I must say, with some reluctance, that I should find it difficult to support the Bill. I should probably feel that it would still be right, if the House so wished, for the Bill to be discussed in detail in Committee, but I should certainly feel obliged to vote against it on Third Reading unless it were possible, between now and then, for the points which I have raised to be substantially met.

9.13 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Neil Carmichael): I assure the House, and those who wish to speak, that I am not terminating the debate, but merely conventionally intervening as a Government spokesman on a Private Bill, and it is perhaps better that I speak now to give the general view of the Government rather than wait till everyone has spoken. One is somewhat nervous about speaking when everyone debating the Bill is so knowledgeable and has so much local feeling and understanding of the problem. However, it is customary when a Private Bill is debated that the Government should make a brief statement of their attitude to the Bill.
My Department has the overall responsibility for roads and bridges, and we therefore have an interest in the progress of this Bill. The Bill, as has been said most eloquently by other hon. Members, relates to a very unique and historic bridge which everyone agrees should be preserved as a monument, both in its own right, because of the type of bridge it is and its appearance, and also as a splendid example of the work of I. K. Brunel. Whether its usefulness as a road bridge across the gorge is likely to decline is, in my opinion, a secondary consideration. It is absolutely beyond dispute that it must be maintained as a fine historic monument. Everyone appears to be agreed on that.
The only questions at issue are whether the tolls should be increased, and, if so, whether the trustees ought to seek the local council's consent and go through a formal order-making procedure before


they increase the tolls within the maxima provided for in the Bill.
On these questions the Government have a completely open mind and are perfectly happy to leave it to Parliament to decide the precise procedures which should govern the putting up of the charges. I hardly think that a Second Reading debate is the appropriate time to decide this rather esoteric question.
I therefore recommend, on behalf of the Government, that the House should follow convention and refer the Bill to a Select Committee where all these aspects can be examined in detail with the help of experts who will, no doubt, be brought along for both the proposers of the Bill and the objectors to the Bill. That is the line that I advise the House to take.

Mr. Paul Dean: I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman could help a little more on one specific question which my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Cooke) put to him and which interests me, too, and which I mentioned in my speech. Do I understand that the Department of the Environment would be prepared, in the event of the Bill being amended to meet the views of the local authorities, to be, as it were, the court of last resort in the event of a dispute about the level of the tolls, and also to adjudicate on these matters, on the presumption that its findings would be accepted and agreed to by both the trustees and the local authorities involved?

Mr. Carmichael: Strong recommendations from the Select Committee which examined the Bill and more information would be available at the time of the Third Reading of the Bill. I am sure that we should then have an opinion from the experts on whether it would be advisable for the Secretary of State to become involved in this matter in his official capacity. The thing to do is get the Bill to the Committee, have it examined, and make some of these decisions in due course.

9.17 p.m.

Mr. Marten McLaren: It is perhaps inevitable that in a debate of rather limited scope we go over the same ground and make the same points in our different ways. We are

concerned here with a beautiful bridge built over 100 years ago to commemorate Brunel. The bridge is very much part of the Bristol and, indeed, the national heritage. It is one of the momuments of Victorian engineering. The view of it from Bedminster Down and elsewhere when it is lighted up on summer evenings is very lovely.
It is right to emphasise that the Bill's main purpose is to extend and modernise the constitution of the trust. This was made necessary by the reorganisation of local government. Thus a trustee is to be appointed by the Avon County Council instead of by Somerset, and a trustee is to be appointed by the new Woodspring District Council. In honour of the engineering and architectural importance of the bridge, it is proposed that trustees should be appointed by the Institution of Civil Engineers, by the National Trust and by the Secretary of State for the Environment as highway authority.
All that is non-controversial. The only controversial point is the proposal that the trustees should take power to increase the maximum tolls. That proposal has been opposed by the Avon County Council and the Bristol District Council.
It is not intended, as has been said, to use these powers as soon as the Bill is passed. No tolls would be increased before 1975 at the earliest. However, considerable expense is involved in applying to Parliament for a Private Bill. The trustees had to do so because of the new local authorities and it was reasonable therefore, that the Bill should include provisions for future tolls in case they should be needed. I fully agree that it has been creditable that the trustees of the bridge have managed to keep their charges stationary for the past twenty years in the face of inflation. If nothing were done, it is possible that it would be necessary to run down the trustee's reserve fund.
Bristol's traffic problems arise mainly because of the difficulty of crossing the River Avon. At present there are four crossings—the Bath Bridge, the Bedminster Bridge, the Cumberland Basin and the suspension bridge. But within a few months an important new bridge, the M5 motorway bridge, will be opened over the river at Avonmouth in my constituency. It is very difficult to judge in advance the future of the suspension


bridge until we see the change in traffic flows when the M5 bridge is open. Some people think that the suspension bridge will eventually become a pedestrian bridge, but I think that it will be needed for many years to come to carry a substantial amount of car traffic.
It would be reasonable to empower the trustees to charge increased tolls to help them cope with inflation. They might need large sums if a major repair of the bridge were wanted. One alternative solution would be that the bridge and the road running across it should be brought into the general system of the highway. A drawback to that solution is that the Department of the Environment does not wish it, presumably because it would expose it to potentially heavy liabilities.
If any proposal were made to increase the tolls within a year or so, it would be subject to the Government's prices policy and legislation at the time. Only a few days ago in the Budget Statement the Chancellor warned that railway fares would have to rise by a substantial amount. If so, I fail to see what is wrong with a modest increase in the charge for tolls over the suspension bridge.

Mr. Terry Walker: The point I made is that the fundamental difference here is that, as the promoters say in their statement, the tolls would be increased to meet
any extraordinary demand for renewing, improving or extending the bridge.
This point has not been answered by any hon. Member. It was never intended to renew or to extend this bridge.

Mr. McLaren: When one drafts a Private Bill one puts in a lot of possibilities, though the likelihood of any of them happening is not great. The main possibility is the liability for maintenance and repair of the bridge.
When one reads the correspondence which has passed between the parties, one finds that the trustees of the bridge have leaned over backwards to discuss the matter with local authorities and to reach a friendly agreement. They offer the formal undertaking to consult the local authorities on any proposal for an increased toll and to consider their representations at a meeting. Let it be remembered that under the Bill the local authorities are given representation on the

trustees' own body, so they will be able to express a voice on any occasion.
My conclusion coincides with that recommended to us by the Under-Secretary that it would be reasonable to give the Bill a Second Reading so that the detailed points which have arisen in the debate might be considered in the usual way in Committee.

9.25 p.m.

Mr. Paul Tyler: I intervene briefly and with some trepidation because, unlike most Members taking part in the debate, I have to declare a non-interest: I do not live and I do not have a constituency close to the bridge. I do, however, have an intermittent interest in that a great many people who come to the West Country—and by "West Country" I mean Devon and Cornwall—travel along this route. Until the M5 is completed, those people will continue to use this route.
I want to ask two questions. I realise that neither of them will be answered this evening but I hope that they will be faced frankly by the trustees when, as I hope, the Bill is given a Second Reading and goes to Committee. It seems to me that those who use the bridge, whether regularly day by day or occasionally, as I use it, require to know two things: first, the way in which any additional charges are to be imposed and how there may be a differential between different types of users; and secondly, what is to be done with the additional funds raised.
On the first point, I hope the trustees will give an undertaking that in Committee they will retain the season ticket arrangements and that they will review the differential between the single toll and the season ticket. It seems to me that a season ticket is a very important advantage for those who use the bridge on a regular basis. I understand that the 1952 Act which set up the trust did not include statutory provision for a season ticket. I hope that in Committee this matter can be reviewed. Similarly I hope that there will be an opportunity to look again at charges for pedestrians. Time has passed on and perhaps the case that was originally made is no longer valid.
Concerning the uses to which any additional funds should be put, I hope


it can be demonstrated by the trustees that the additional funds raised will be devoted entirely to increasing the flow of traffic across the bridge. When I recently crossed the bridge, within the last few weeks, two things amazed me. First, the amount of the toll was exactly the same as when I had last crossed it, even in this time of rampant inflation. The other element of surprise was that in 1974 one still queues for an incredibly antiquated method of toll collection. We who benefit from the Tamar Bridge where there is a much more up-to-date method, would find this an anachronism which we would not tolerate daily.
I and my colleagues would be very happy to give the Bill a Second Reading. We recognise that this is the right thing to do at present but we hope that undertakings will be given on behalf of the trustees that the matters to which I have referred will be given the fullest consideration when the Bill is in Committee.

9.29 p.m.

Mr. John Ellis: I apologise for not being present to hear the opening statement. I should like to declare a slight interest in that in my constituency we may have a toll bridge in the not-too-distant future —the Humber bridge. Therefore, I seek this opportunity to make my position clear. I do not like toll bridges. I should like to see all tolls abolished in Britain.
I am a constituent of the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. McLaren). I do not just stay in his area; I live there. That is where I have lived for some time and where I have my house. I found his speech extraordinary, because, representing the people in the area as he does, he seems to be in favour of people paying higher tolls for this facility when we all know that this bridge will not be renewed.
As has been said, it is a historical monument. It would be an affront to everyone in Bristol if an attempt were made to renew it. No doubt it will be kept as a set piece, and that is what we want. Therefore, this Bill is introduced on the false premise of funds to renew a bridge which we all know will not be renewed.
I am against the Bill on my main point, that I am against toll bridges in

principle. We may have this debate on another occasion in relation to the Humber bridge. Furthermore, living where I do, and as a humble ratepayer, I cannot believe that any case has been made for raising tolls or to renew or rebuild a bridge. We all know that would be utter stupidity. I do not represent the people of that area in a parliamentary way. The hon. Member for Bristol, North-West does that.

9.31 p.m.

Mr. Jerry Wiggin: Unlike the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Tyler) and the hon. Member for Brigg and Scunthorpe (Mr. Ellis), I can claim a very direct constituency interest in this matter. As in the case of my hon. Friend the Member for Somerset, North (Mr. Dean), I can say that many of my constituents travel across this bridge once or twice a day to their work in Bristol. Moreover, with the failure to complete the M5 bridge and with the motorway now terminating at Portishead, the bridge is the shortest way back into the city and around it.
I was interested to note the concern of the hon. Member for Bodmin in these matters. It was a pity that the Liberal Party of previous days did not take a little more interest in local government reorganisation. Had they been prepared to turn up, we might have been talking about a bridge from Bristol to Somerset instead of an internal bridge in the county of Avon. But that is now history.
Secondly, the importance of this bridge as part of the scene of the city of Bristol has been raised but not emphasised. I cannot visualise Bristol without the Clifton suspension bridge. Visitors to the city look upon the bridge as a landmark, as part of the city and its history. There is nothing better than a monument which is alive and which is used. It is the functional capacity of the bridge which itself enhances its reputation world-wide.
The traffic situation in Bristol is utterly disastrous and indeed has been so for many years. I hate to think of the number of hours I have spent in traffic jams in the city in the last five years. The opening of the M5 bridge will be of enormous assistance, but it is running two or three years behind schedule. The waste of time and the


extra expense has been the subject of other debates in this House.
Those of us who live on the western side of the city have a problem in trying to get from the M4 across the four crossings. If one rejects the city of Bath as being in an even worse situation—and those who have experience of that city in the rush hour will agree that it is no traffic thoroughfare—one is faced with the M32, which is not yet completed. Therefore, one has to experience one traffic diversion after another to get round the construction works. Parkway is congested enough at ordinary times, but when the bridge is being swung, that thoroughfare comes to a halt. Any attempt to get through Cumberland Basin between five o'clock and 6.30 p.m. means a wait of half an hour or more. Therefore, it is convenient to turn to the Clifton Bridge as a quicker way through the top side of the city.
My hon. Friend the Member for Somerset, North put his finger on the matter when stating that people would be prepared to pay higher tolls if they were to be assured of a proper service. Those who use the bridge know that the present arrangements are antiquated and irritating. Whoever is responsible, whether it be the Department of the Environment—and in this case I do not think the Department is guilty—or the city of Bristol, little has been done to improve the traffic approaches on both sides.
The approach from Somerset is dangerous and difficult. If one is driving out in the other direction, certainly nothing has been done to try to facilitate that route. On the Clifton side of the bridge, the roads are just as they were in the horse and buggy era of the last century when Bristol was being built.
I should like to hear more about what the Department of the Environment is doing to improve conditions on either side of the bridge. I believe that the bridge could carry more traffic if one could get to it, and this aspect deserves to be given more attention.
Little mention has been made of the financial situation, although my hon. Friend who proposed the Bill mentioned the large reserve funds possessed by the trustees. I am not convinced that on financial grounds there is at present a

case for increasing tolls. We have been given some estimated figures showing that by 1974 the absolute operating costs would exceed the tolls that are likely to be received. Obviously that is a matter of opinion, but it is probably a reasonable—

Mr. Terry Walker: The hon. Gentleman knows that there have been various difficulties about the tolls and that the fault lies with the people putting forward this Bill. Those must be sorted out. For that reason, all this is in the air.

Mr. Wiggin: I was about to point out that this is purely an operating loss. It takes no account of the revenue received from reserves. If the reserves are £600,000, the interest will come to about £40,000 a year. On the estimated figures, it could be 1978 before the trustees faced a net deficit on their annual operating costs taking into account, in addition, their income from investments.
I remind the trustees that we in this House try to consider Private Bills as carefully as possible. However, this Bill would be better if it came back to us in a year's time. By then we should understand better the case for increasing the tolls. At a time when average rate increases in Avon and Somerset are running, in my constituency, up to 70 per cent., any possible savings, however small, are to be welcomed.

Mr. McLaren: It does not follow that the tolls will be raised. The trustees are merely seeking power to raise them if they find, against their will, that they have to.

Mr. Wiggin: I cannot go along with my hon. Friend in that argument. It is my experience that when this House gives a power for charges to be raised, it is not long before use is made of it.
In any event, if there is not this great urgency there may be a good case for delaying the matter for 12 months and looking at it again.
I always view corporate trustees with suspicion. There is the unfortunate dichotomy of responsibility which the trustee has—as the representative of the body sending him on to the second body, and in his hat as an individual thinker, in this case as a trustee. Therefore while I welcome the philosophy behind the view


that council members of Avon and Wood-spring should be on these bodies, the more important aspect is consultation and not representation. For that reason, that part of the Bill is to be welcomed.
If my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West could see his way to accepting some delay, I should see my own way to supporting the Bill—basically on the lines that he has presented tonight—in 12 months' time after considerably more thought has been given to it.

9.40 p.m.

Mr. Robert Cooke: With the leave of the House, I shall try to deal with some of the matters which have been raised.
The hon. Member for Kingswood (Mr. Walker) was prepared to see the bridge abandoned for road traffic and even to get to the stage where it would not be walked upon and would be maintained merely as a relic of the industrial age.
The hon. Gentleman then made some point about renewal, improvement or extension of the bridge. Those words appear in the Act of 1952 and not in the Bill. I might point out to the hon. Gentleman that "extension" does not mean that the bridge is to be stretched out. It means that land may be acquired. "Improvement" means that new engineering techniques may be used. I think that the hon. Gentleman was making rather heavy weather of the point.
A point of substance was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Somerset, North (Mr. Dean). I repeat what I said earlier about the aim of the trustees to improve traffic flow. I have the results of trials carried out with real vehicles on ground which was properly marked out in order to see whether within the constraints of the structure of the bridge the traffic flow could be improved. The results are most encouraging, although I admit that this matter would have to be considered later in detail should the Bill proceed.
Several hon. Members spoke about season-ticket holders. I am sure that many people would buy season tickets if they thought that these would give them immediate admission to the bridge. We who use the bridge have said for years that we would be prepared to pay a large sum if we could be sure that we would not have to queue. The difficulty is that

there is only a certain amount of land available to the trustees on either side of the bridge, and more land would be needed to marshal the vehicles in their respective lines. But these points ought to be considered in detail later.
There is also the question of the financial state of the trustees. I have a sheet of figures giving the projected annual deficits in each succeeding year if the present tolls have to remain. There would be a £16,000 deficit in 1974, although there has been an exceptional £30,000 call on the trustees' funds for major repairs. The deficit for 1975 is projected at £16,000, for 1976 at £25,000 and for 1977 at £33,000 and by 1984 there would be a deficit on the year of £77,000.

Mr. Wiggin: I suspect that I have the same figures as my hon. Friend. They relate exclusively to operating losses, balancing the income from tolls against the cost of maintaining the bridge. The figures do not include any of the revenue which the trustees receive by way of income from investments. Although the projected loss figures which my hon. Friend stated may be correct, the trustees will not be losing the total amount of money until 1978.

Mr. Cooke: The cost of renewing the chains of the bridge, which could arise, would be a great deal more in 1984 than in 1974.
There has been much vexed discussion about the matter of the tolls. I am authorised to say on behalf of the trustees that if it will help the House to come to a conclusion and if the Bill receives a Second Reading the trustees will seek later to remove Clause 8 and Schedule 2, but that is the only undertaking they are prepared to give and I put it to the House for consideration.

Mr. Paul Dean: I am grateful for the undertaking which my hon. Friend has given. He has made an important statement on behalf of the trustees. This aspect of the Bill either caused outright opposition in some cases or, as in my case, caused questions to be raised. This is an important statement which has substantially altered the character of the Bill and, therefore, the way it is being approached. In the light of the undertaking which my hon. Friend has given, I should be prepared to support the Bill


at this stage, although I reserve my judgment as to Third Reading until we see how it emerges from Committee.

Mr. Cooke: Because of the powerful argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Somerset, North and the arguments of my hon. Friends the Members for Bristol, North-West (Mr. McLaren) and Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin), the trustees have authorised me to give that undertaking. If the Bill proceeds and this part about tolls is left out, the local authorities which now object will be represented on the trustee body and will be able to exert their influence.
We were grateful for the interest of the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Tyler), who might be described himself as the Liberal Party spokesman for suspension bridges. It was pleasant to hear from him, and next time he crosses the bridge I hope that he will give us a thought. The former hon. Member for Bristol, North-West, now the hon. Member for Brigg and Scunthorpe (Mr. John Ellis), was against toll bridges on principle but in favour of semi-derelict suspension bridges. He would prefer the Clifton

Question accordingly negatived.

Bridge to go into a state of semi-dereliction and not be maintained.

My hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare has been a valiant fighter for many causes in the West, and long may he continue. His experience of the traffic in Bristol seems to be as good as that of any hon. Member for the city. We look forward to his help in trying to get better conditions in future. He said that the bridge should be maintained as a living monument to Brunel. I agree. The suggestion that it should become a derelict relic would have Brunel turning in his grave. Isambard Brunel would no doubt have harnessed even that energy for the public good, because his ingenuity was limitless.

The only fear that Brunel had about his bridge was that troops would march across it in step and break it. The troops that have marched against this bridge and this Bill today are not in step, and I submit that a case has been made out in favour of the trustees.

Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 20, Noes 60.

Division No. 6.]
AYES
[9.47 p.m.


Carmichael, Neil
Kershaw, Anthony
Steel, David


Chalker, Mrs. Lynda
Loveridge, John
Tyler, Paul


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Macfariane, Neil
Weatherill, Bernard


Drayson, Burnaby
McLaren, Martin
Wiggin, Jerry


Fairgrieve, Russell
Miller, Hal (B'grove &amp; R'ditch)



Finsberg, Geoffrey
Morgan, Geraint
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Mr. Robert Cooke and


Hampson, Dr. Keith
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)
Mr. Paul Dean.




NOES


Atkins, Ronald
Harper, Joseph
Palmer, Arthur


Bates, Alf
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Pavitt, Laurie


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Hunter, Adam
Prescott, John


Callaghan, Jim (M'dd'ton &amp; Pr'wich)
Jackson, Colin
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Cocks, Michael
John, Brynmor
Rodgers, George (Chorley)


Cohen, Stanley
Jonas, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Skinner, Dennis


Conlan, Bernard
Kaufman, Gerald
Snape, P. C.


Cook, Robert F. (Edinburgh, C.)
Kerr, Russell
Spriggs, Leslie


Crawshaw, Richard
Lambie, David
Stott, Roger


Cryer, G. R.
Lamond, James
Thorn, Stan (Preston, S.)


Dalyell, Tam
Lawson, George (Motherwell&amp;Wishaw)
Urwin, T. W.


Dempsey, James
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Varley, Rt. Hn. Eric G.


Doig, Peter
Loyden, Eddie
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Edge, Geoff
McGuire, Michael
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scunthorpe)
McNamara, Kevin
Winterton, Nicholas


Evans, J. (Newton)
Madden, M. O. F.
Woodall, Alec


Fernyhouch, Rt. Hn. E.
Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Young, David (Bolton, E.)


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Marks, Kenneth



Fowler, Gerry (The Wrekin)
Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, ltchen)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


George, B. T.
Newens, Stanley (Harlow)
Mr. David Stoddart and


Graham, Ted
Ovenden, John
Mr. Terry Walker.


Hamilton, William (Fife, C.)

HOUSE OF COMMONS (SERVICES)

Ordered,
That Dr. Michael Winstanley be discharged from the Select Committee on House of Commons (Services) and that Mr. Clement Freud be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Walter Harrison.]

ADJOURNMENT

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Harper.]

HOUSING (RENTED ACCOMMODATION)

9.58 p.m.

Mr. Robert Cooke: I hope I shall not try your patience in the time that remains, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You have been good enough to listen to us on the subject of the Clifton Suspension Bridge which, while a matter of national importance, also has considerable local interest.
I hope the Minister will reply to certain remarks I shall make about the problems of homes to let. In certain areas there is a great shortage of such accommodation and the construction of new houses cannot remedy it in the foreseeable future. Not all of those who are seeking homes want to buy them. A large number of young people want to retain their mobility, perhaps because they are seeking promotion in their employment and must be prepared to move about the country.
If they are limited to buying a house because they cannot rent, they may be saddled with an investment which they could not realise if they were called upon suddenly to move. They will be faced with a difficult choice. A young man may have bought the house on a mortgage and may be paying a high rate of interest. He will probably find that the value of the house has declined, in common with other property values recently. He will either have to refuse the promotion and stay where he is, perhaps missing a once-in-a-lifetime chance—

It being Ten o'clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Kaufman.]

Mr. Cooke: The young man has the terrible dilemma of passing up the promotion or selling this major asset at a loss. He may try to let the house, but if he lets it unfurnished he can be stuck with a tenant he cannot get rid of. I see the Under-Secretary nodding his head in assent. It is clear, therefore, that not all the young people, or, for that matter, older people, want to buy. Many circumstances indicate that renting would be preferable. The choice is to rent from the council, and there is always a heavy demand there, or to rent from the private sector. The stock in the private sector has greatly declined over the last 10 or 15 years because successive Governments have never been able Quite to come to terms with this aspect of the housing situation.
After what happened at the General Election I am not surprised that my party was cautious in saying anything about the matter. Just before the election I had managed to get my party unanimously in favour of helping the private rented sector by making it easier for an owner-occupier with surplus rooms in his house to let those rooms for the first time. That would not have applied if the rooms had been previously let. If a tenant were already in occupation the position would not have been disturbed. The idea was not to apply to any existing secure tenant The scheme was to apply to spare accommodation in owner-occupied homes in which the owner would be prepared to let accommodation to another family provided that he could retain control of his home.
The idea was that an owner and a potential tenant could enter into a lease, which would be freely entered into by both sides, so that the parties would know where they were for a year, two years or more, and that at the end of the term the owner-occupier would know that he would get back his home. It is because at present the owner-occupier knows that if he lets he may well be stuck with a tenant who turns out not to be a success, who might become the bane of his life, and that he will never be able to shift him, that a tremendous number of potential homes is withheld from the market. I estimate that approximately


I million potential homes for rent could be produced by making it easier for the owner-occupier to make his contribution in the present conditions of shortage.
So far no one has denied my estimate. Nobody has quarrelled with it. The previous Government and the previous Opposition had the opportunity to do so but they could not produce any figures to quarrel with mine. The sad situation is that the present Government, after the election, made certain noises in the direction of furnished lettings. I am talking about the unfurnished sector. Those noises will make people disinclined to let furnished accommodation if they think that they will never be able to regain possession. A further 1 million homes will he locked up by the attitude of the present Government.
I ask the Government to think again and to consider whether they want to achieve a position in which owner-occupiers may be less anxious to take people into their houses, although they would be pleased to do so if they knew that they could retain control of their own homes. There is surely nothing wrong in owner-occupiers being able to retain control. I am not talking about property developers, property speculators or landlords in the true sense of the word who might own a block of flats or a large amount of property. I am talking about the owner-occupier who is letting to people for the first time. I believe that he should be given a chance to make his contribution.
It is in the areas of the greatest need that there is the greatest potential. Any hon. Member who represents the residential part or the industrial part of a great provincial city knows that there are houses which are occupied by a couple whose family has grown up and gone away or by single ladies living alone in houses far too big for them. In the same street there may be young couples who are about to be married, or who have been married, who are walking up and down the street desperately trying to find somewhere to live. Ugly social pressures could build up, and in some areas they are building up, because the present state of the law makes it impossible for those who would like to welcome in potential tenants in fact to do so.
I have already referred to the misunderstandings which exist. I am afraid

that some of them are deliberately whipped up for rather strange political reasons. I suppose that all is fair at a General Election. Many people get carried away and say things which cannot be backed up by the facts. However, I think that it is going a bit far for the present Secretary of State for the Environment, in a Press release published by the Labour Party Information Department, Transport House, when commenting on a proposal in the Conservative election manifesto, to say
One alarming proposal has got into the Tory Election Manifesto. They are threatening to remove security of tenure from unfurnished tenants whose landlord lives in the same house.
Now, of course, it may be that the right hon. Gentleman had heard some garbled version of what we were proposing. In that case, I suppose that he might be exonerated. But surely not. He is a Privy Councillor and had previously been a Secretary of State. He would surely have checked his facts.
I think that the right hon. Gentleman was tempted, in the heat of the election, to comment on what he supposed some people would think we were talking about I ask the Under-Secretary of State to have a word with the right hon. Gentleman so that there may be no misunderstanding. We on this side of the House realise that housing is a most delicate matter and that there must be security of tenure for those who have lived in a place for a long time and are now perhaps old, unable to pay more and would find it difficult to get anywhere else to live. Of course their security must be jealously guarded, even though on many occasions the tenant has it all his own way and the owner may be in grave difficulty.
I have such a case. It is that of an old lady who has a heart condition. She lives at the top of her house and would dearly love to move down. But she cannot shift the protected tenant who lives downstairs. It is a sad situation.
But we were not proposing to do anything about such a situation in our manifesto, and when the right hon. Gentleman claimed that, as a result of our proposals, many tenants would be thrown on the streets, he was going too far.
But now we are away from the election fever and I hope that both sides of the


House can reach some agreement on this matter. We strongly adhere to what was clearly stated in the Conservative manifesto. We believe that when an owner-occupier wants to make a contribution, nothing should stand in his way. Of course, we could hedge the arrangement round in one way or another. If it were done by agreement or lease between owner-occupier and tenant, it could be supervised. Perhaps even the rent could be agreed and supervised by some public body which already exists under the law. But in the long run, with more and more freedom, rents would find a fair level of their own. However, at the outset it might well be advantageous to let the existing machinery supervise these new arrangements. We would not quarrel with that.
I do not suppose that I need quote much more evidence in support of my case. I have had many letters on the subject since the election. The Government made noises about furnished tenancies, which suggest that more and more people will not again let accommodation which becomes available. They will not have anyone in unless they can be sure at the end of a lease or agreement of being able to see the back of them. They would not want to repeat the bitter experience of so many people who have let accommodation.
Surely all parties must do their best to co-operate in this matter. I know that the Labour Party has an inborn hatred of landlords. Of course there were very bad landlords indeed, but I am not talking about landlords. One cannot call the owner-occupier who is prepared to share his home with one other family, or perhaps, if it is a big house, two families, a landlord. I would not extend that beyond two or give any special concessions to somebody who has bought a big house and divides it into a dozen small units. I am referring to a genuine owner-occupier with a house which is slightly too big. It is up to the Government to work out the detail because they have all the apparatus.
Let us get away from the fearful idea that all landlords are wicked, because they are not, or that the landlord image comes into this matter. We shall not, with the best will in the world, solve our housing problem by new construction. The

resources do not exist. If the present Government said that they would build 500,000 houses in a year they could do it only at the expense of not building the roads and hospitals we need, and of cutting back on schools. Only so much construction can be done in a year. The hon. Member knows a lot about that because, although we violently disagree on many political things, he has great experience on housing matters. I am sure he is giving my suggestion serious thought.
We cannot deal with the matter simply by new building. There is a tremendous untapped pool of potential accommodation, so why not give the idea that I am putting forward a chance? I do not believe it would do any damage to the housing market by giving it a chance. I believe that this idea would produce a million extra homes to let within a very short time. This is something that cuts right across party politics. Let us forget politics for a while and give the idea a try

10.13 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Gerald Kaufman): I congratulate the hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Cooke) on choosing such a timely and important subject for debate and for allowing us to have our first housing debate in this Parliament. The hon. Gentleman has boldly stepped in where the Opposition Front Bench, very understandably, feared to tread.
As the hon. Gentleman knows, the present Government strongly support and encourage home ownership and will take every step open to them to advance home ownership. As the hon. Member recognises, however—this indeed is the burden of what he said this evening—for millions of families home ownership may be out of range or it may not suit their special requirements, perhaps their working requirements.
As a result, today, despite the increasing demand for home ownership, pretty well half the households in this country are still tenants of one kind or another. But, as the hon. Gentleman also pointed out, although demand for rented property is maintained, certainly keenly always—and sometimes, both in the hon. Member's experience and in mine as constituency Members, heart-rendingly—supply is not meeting demand.
Under the previous Government the number of rented dwellings was far from sufficient for needs. The hon. Gentleman pointed out that the amount of privately rented property was decreasing. The sad fact is that over the past few years the decline in the privately rented sector has not been matched, let alone exceeded, by an increase in local authority accommodation.
During the Conservative Government's period of office the number of rented dwellings, taking public authorities and private landlords combined, actually fell by nearly 90,000. In 1972 for example, the latest year for which we have statistics, the number of new buildings provided by local authorities for new tenants was a measly 56,000.
Apart from the special considerations which the hon. Gentleman has advanced —both in debate and at Question Time in the previous Parliament—that is why he has consistently advocated the expansion of furnished lettings as a way of helping to deal with this problem. He has put forward his case with such statistics as he has been able to obtain, and he believes, in particular, that there is considerable under-occupation among owner-occupiers which could be used to help meet the need that he describes. The hon. Gentleman has advanced his case in every way open to him. During the debate on the Consolidated Fund Bill he made the point that he believed that there were glimmers of light peeping through the stone wall of my Department.
The hon. Gentleman also believes—he said so again tonight—that owner-occupiers are discouraged from making available the kind of accommodation that could help to meet the problem because of the restrictions that are placed upon landlords of furnished accommodation by legislation to protect tenants in such accommodation.
The hon. Gentleman is particularly concerned about the legislation that we announced in the Queen's Speech, by which we plan to provide security of tenure for furnished tenants. I take it from his remarks this evening that he believe that the legislation that we are in the course of proposing in fulfilment both of our election pledge and of our commitment in the Queen Speech will act as a further deterrent to making available the kind of accommodation that the hon.

Gentleman advocates and that he believes will help to solve the problem he describes.

Mr. Robert Cooke: The hon. Gentleman has not quite got it right. He spoke of furnished accommodation. I was referring to the situation where owner-occupiers have a few rooms, perhaps at the top of the house, that they would he happy to let unfurnished. After all, having collected their wedding presents and furniture, young people want to use them. It is the owners of unfurnished accommodation who at present get caught by the existing law. There is no incentive whatever to let, as tenants cannot be evicted. That was the point about which I made such a fuss. I said further that the present Government, judging from the Queen's Speech and their election manifesto, will now place a further disincentive on anyone who wishes to let furnished, because once a tenant is in accommodation he cannot be got out. There are two sides to this matter.

Mr. Kaufman: I accept the hon. Gentleman's remarks. The people who he believes have under-occupied property would be ready to let it unfurnished if legislation were not restrictive—in his view the legislation is restrictive—but they would let furnished accommodation, as a second-best perhaps, provided that they were not let in for more than they felt able to take on. The hon. Gentleman regards the legislation which we shall bring in soon as a further disincentive to the people he has in mind to make this type of accommodation available. While we are determined to bring in this legislation, and while it is not possible to forecast the details of the provisions now being worked out, it can be said—and I readily volunteer this to the hon. Gentleman—that the case for allowing exemptions in certain circumstances is being closely studied. We shall have to wait for the legislation itself, which I cannot anticipate.
The special position of owner-occupiers letting their own homes while temporarily absent and of people letting part of their own homes will be borne in mind. But I am sure the hon. Gentleman will not be satisfied even with this. I assume, from the speeches in the campaign which he waged in the last Parliament, before this legislation was on the horizon, that his aim was to remove


some of the existing restrictions in order to make it possible for the people he has in mind to make accommodation available.
I have tried to be helpful so far, but I must tell the hon. Gentleman that this would not be acceptable to the present Government. It may be true—and I do not quarrel with the hon. Gentleman in his assumption, for the sake of argument —that more furnished accommodation would be made available if restrictions were fewer. But it is fair to ask in that circumstance: what would be the position of the tenant? Tenants of furnished accommodation in too many cases already live in constant fear of eviction.
The hon. Gentleman spoke, in advocating his cause, of rents finding their own level, but certainly in many cases now tenants of furnished accommodation are often paying an excessive rent. One hears of the most monstrous rents in the London area, for example, with the tenants accepting the situation rather than making trouble, which could result in eviction.
If the most elementary protection for tenants means a slackening of the growth in the furnished sector, we on this side must accept that and we believe that homes to let must instead be provided in other ways.

Mr. Robert Cooke: The hon. Gentleman keeps harking on about this question of the furnished tenant. The Department knows all about what I was arguing and must have advised him, and he knew because he must have heard some of the things that I said in the last Parliament. The Department knows that the main source of supply, the untapped wealth, the 1 million potential homes, lies in the owner-occupier who has spare rooms at the top of the house or in some other part of his house which he would be prepared to let unfurnished. It is because the present law would give an unfurnished tenant absolute security and the owner of the house would never be sure when that tenant would be out—or if they had an agreement for a year he would never be sure of getting him out—that the owner will not let. What I have advocated to the hon. Member is that in that circumstance the house-owner should be able to enter into a

freely agreed lease with a potential tenant. It could be policed by the hon. Gentleman's police force in the shape of the rent officers and all the rest of it. That surely gives absolute justice to both sides. What will he do to unlock this potential 1 million homes which otherwise will remain locked up?

Mr. Kaufman: I fear that I must disappoint the hon. Gentleman. I have said that we must—not just must, but are determined to—go ahead with our legislation to provide security of tenure for furnished tenants. I am afraid that, even with the kind of safeguards he proposes, we certainly cannot at this stage go back on security of tenure for unfurnished tenants.
The hon. Gentleman made much of under-occupation among owner-occupiers. He called it a tremendous fund of accommodation. It is true that among owner-occupiers 40 per cent. of dwellings are at a density of less than one person to two rooms, but we have no way of knowing whether the hon. Gentleman's estimate is accurate. I do not quarrel with him about it, but there is no way of knowing how many of those owner-occupiers wish to let part of their homes.
It is an interesting fact that under-occupation is almost exactly the same in the privately rented unfurnished sector, for which the figure is 39·5 per cent., compared with 40 per cent. among owner-occupiers. All those homes by definition are available for letting. While they remain at random in private hands, a sensible allocation to people who need the dwellings according to the space they require cannot be achieved.
In any case, massive repair and renovation are needed, for 22·9 per cent, of privately tenanted housing stock is unfit. It makes up 60 per cent. of all occupied unfit dwellings, while 30·1 per cent. of private tenanted dwellings are in need of more than £500-worth of repairs. I grant that it is four times as many as in the owner-occupied sector, but it is 14 times as many as in the council house sector.
I went round my constituency on Saturday and saw private landlord dwellings riddled with damp, reeking of neglect, and where the landlord seemed completely uninterested in housing tenants adequately, and where the tenants were growing frantic because of this neglect


and their inability to lead satisfactory family lives. Despite the obvious sincerity with which the hon. Gentleman advocates his case, it is our view that local authorities, with all their shortcomings—which I am the first to accept —are the only bodies equipped to do the job of providing rented accommodation on a large scale as well as achieving a rational allocation of tenancies, even though, again, I should be the first to agree that even local authorities do not always achieve that.
In our view, municipalisation is vital for the decent housing of the people. The provision of new tenanted property by the public sector is equally important. Without wishing to introduce too partisan a note into a debate of this nature, I must point out that the last administration woefully failed to provide such accommodation, with the worst number of starts and completions last year for over a quarter of a century.
We shall tackle the problem in two ways. First, we shall consider new legislation which, with the new grant system, will make finance available through the Housing Corporation to housing association schemes as well as

enabling the Housing Corporation to build on its own account. Both these projects will assist in catering for the kind of specialised needs which the hon. Gentleman quite rightly says must be provided for. This is the unique and valuable rôle of the housing associations.
But I return to my insistence that the main job on a large scale can be done only by local authorities building enough houses for rent. That is why my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced last week that he is making £200 million available this year for extra local authority building, plus acquisitions from private developers, which will also in their turn increase the stock to rent.
I thank the hon. Member for Bristol, West sincerely for raising this supremely important topic of providing homes for rent. The Government may not be tackling the problem in quite the way that he would wish, but I assure him that we are tackling it with more determination than it has ever been approached before.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-eight minutes past Ten o'clock.